Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:13

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:13” utilice nuestra app.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

13. Nothing short of a miracle could account for the change which had taken place in the life and aims of St Paul (comp. Php 3:4-10). It was not likely that a man with such antecedents should have accepted the Gospel with its consequences on merely human testimony.

ye have heard ] Rather, Ye heard from myself when I was with you, and (perhaps) from my colleagues.

my conversation ] i.e. my manner of life, as Eph 4:22; Heb 13:7; Jas 3:13, &c. In Php 1:27; Php 3:20 the same English word represents a different word in the original, and refers to civil and political duties and privileges, rather than those which are personal and social.

the Jews’ religion] One word in the original, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. except in Gal 1:14. From the use of the corresponding verb, we may regard it as referring not to the religion revealed to the Jews in the writings of Moses and the prophets, but that which was its actual development in St Paul’s day, when the word of God had been overlaid and ‘made of none effect’ by the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the puerile conceits of the Rabbinic expositors.

I persecuted the church of God ] The same sad confession is made 1Co 15:9. There is solemnity in the addition of the words “of God”. The identical expression occurs in the Sept. version of Neh 13:1.

wasted it ] was laying waste, was sweeping it away, exterminating it.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For ye have heard of my conversation – My conduct, my mode of life, my deportment; see the note at 2Co 1:12. Probably Paul had himself made them acquainted with the events of his early years. The reason why he refers to this is, to show them that he had not derived his knowledge of the Christian religion from any instruction which he had received in his early years, or any acquaintance which he had formed with the apostles. At first, Paul had been decidedly opposed to the Lord Jesus, and had been converted only by Gods wonderful grace.

In the Jews religion – In the belief and practice of Judaism; that is, as it was understood in the time when he was educated. It was not merely in the religion of Moses, but it was in that religion as understood and practiced by the Jews in his time, when opposition to Christianity constituted a very material part of it. In that religion Paul proceeds to show that he had been more distinguished than most persons of his time.

How that beyond measure – In the highest possible degree; beyond all limits or bounds; exceedingly. The phrase which Paul uses here ( kath’ huperbolen), by hyperbole, is one which he frequently employs to denote anything that is excessive, or that cannot be expressed by ordinary language; see the Greek text in Rom 7:13; 1Co 12:31; 2Co 1:8; 2Co 4:7, 2Co 4:17.

I persecuted the church – See Act 8:3; Act 9:1 ff.

And wasted it – Destroyed it. The word which is used here, means properly to waste or destroy, as when a city or country is ravaged by an army or by wild beasts. His purpose was utterly to root out and destroy the Christian religion.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gal 1:13

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past.

My conversation in time past

I. An humbling and painful recollection. We should study the true uses of the past. The past is rightly used when it–

1. Deepens our sense of guilt.

2. Illustrates the greatness of Divine mercy.

3. Inspires us with courage in relation to the future.

II. An humbling and painful recollection relieved by the highest consideration.

1. Not a self-recovery or development,

2. but the inward revelation of Christ.

III. An humbling and painful recollection succeeded by a holy and sublime vocation. The fact that God calls converted sinners to preach His gospel.

1. Pats the minister into moral sympathy with his hearers.

2. Exemplifies the power of God to execute His purposes.

3. Stimulates the study of Divine things.

Application: The text–

1. Appeals to the worst of men.

2. Explains the vehemence and urgency of an earnest ministry.

3. Exalts and illustrates the gospel of Christ. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Pauls former life

I. As a persecutor. Consider–

1. The wasting.

(1) How can the Church be wasted? Not in its inward estate, which stands in election, faith, justification; glory; but in respect of mens bodies, public assemblies, religious exercises.

(2) Why does God suffer it to be wasted? Judgment begins at the house of God. Painful operations are often needful to health.

2. The waster.

(1) Sin, when it takes place, gives a man no rest till it has brought him to a height of wickedness.

(2) Therefore avoid the beginning of evil.

II. As a religionist.

1. He profited exceedingly. Observe

(1) that there should be holy emulation in religion,

(2) but modest pretensions an excellence.

2. He was exceedingly jealous

(1) about the law and unwritten traditions,

(2) but not according to knowledge.

III. Whence learn–

1. To addict and set ourselves earnestly to maintain the truth.

2. To be angry when God is dishonoured and His Word disobeyed.

3. Not to give liberty to the best of our natural affections, as zeal, but to rule them.

4. To estimate unwritten traditions at their proper worth. (W. Perkins.)

Persecutor and minister

A minister once preaching a charity sermon in the west of England, began as follows: Many years have elapsed since I was within these walls. On that occasion there came three young men with the intention not only of scoffing at the minister, but with stones in their pockets for the purpose of assaulting him. After a few words one of them said with an oath, Let us be at him now; but the second replied, No; stop till we hear what he makes of this point. The minister went on, when the second said, We have heard enough; now throw, But the third interfered, remarking, He is not so foolish as I expected; let us hear him out. The preacher concluded without having been interrupted. Now mark me–of these three young men one was executed for forgery; the second lies under sentence of death for murder; the third, through the infinite mercy of God, now addresses you. Listen to him.

The value in controversy of practical experience of the opposite side

Paul knew the joints in his opponents armour, and shows at the outset that he knew not only the opinions of the Judaisers, but the spiritual atmosphere in which they had been educated. Such a controversialist the enemy cannot afford to despise, for the battle is half won before it has commenced. It is often very annoying to a young man to be told by a mature Christian, I thought as sceptically as you do, and spoke as rashly, believing that I was going to turn the orthodox world upside down; but I have got beyond those days, and am now a wiser man, as I trust you will be. Yet this is frequently the only way of meeting the case. The young man retires within himself, looks at rash utterances in the light of cool reflection, finds that truth and novelty are not synonymous, and is at least silent, which is a great gain to himself and to those around him. (S. Pearson, M. A.)

Pauls antecedents a qualification for his work

It has often happened that the destroyer of a creed or system has been bred and trained in the bosom of the system which he was destined to shake or destroy. Sakya Mouni had been brought up in Brahminism; Luther had taken the vows of an Augustinian; Pascal had been trained as a Jesuit; Spinoza was a Jew; Wesley and Whitefield were clergymen of the Church of England. It was not otherwise with St. Paul. The victorious enemy of heathen philosophy and worship had passed his boyhood amid the heathen surroundings of a philosophic city. The deadly antagonist of Judaic exclusiveness was by birth a Hebrew of the Hebrews. The dealer of the death-wound to the spirit of Pharisaism was a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees, a scholar of Gamaliel, had been taught according to the perfect manner of the law of his fathers, and had lived after the most straightest sect of the Jewish service. (F. W. Farrar.)

Early persecution of Christians

Oh! said Caesar, we will soon root up this Christianity. Off with their heads! The different governors hastened one after another of the disciples to death; but, the more they persecuted them, the more they multiplied. The pro-consuls had orders to destroy Christians; the more they hunted them, the more Christians there were, until, at last, men pressed to the judgment-seat, and asked to be permitted to die for Christ. They invented torments; they dragged saints at the heels of wild horses; they laid them upon red-hot gridirons; they pulled off the skin from their flesh piece by piece; they were sawn asunder; they were wrapped up in skins, and daubed with pitch, and set in Neros gardens at night to burn; they were left to rot in dungeons; they were made a spectacle to all men in the amphitheatre; the bears hugged them to death; the lions tore them to pieces; the wild bulls tossed them upon their horns: and yet Christianity spread. All the swords of the legionaries which had put to rout the armies of all nations, and had overcome the invincible Gaul and the savage Briton, could not withstand the feebleness of Christianity; for the weakness of God is mightier than men. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The two parts of St. Pauls life

There are questions which it is interesting to suggest, even when they can never receive a perfect and satisfactory answer. One of these questions may be asked respecting St. Paul: What was the relation in which his former life stood to the great fact of his conversion? He himself, in looking back upon the times in which he persecuted the Church of God, thought of them chiefly as an increasing evidence of the mercy of God, which was afterwards extended to him. It Seemed so strange to have been what he had been, and to be what he was. Nor does our own conception of him, in relation to his former self, commonly reach beyond this contrast of the old and new man; the persecutor and the preacher of the gospel; the young man at whose feet the witnesses against Stephen laid down their clothes; and the same Paul disputing against the Grecians, full of visions and revelations of the Lord, on whom in later life came daily the care of all the Churches. Yet we cannot but admit also the possibility, or rather the probable truth, of another point of view. If there were any among the contemporaries of St. Paul who had known him in youth and in age, they would have seen similarities such as escape us in the character of the apostle at different periods of his life. The zealot against the gospel might have seemed to them transfigured into the opponent of the law; they would have found something in common in the Pharisee of the Pharisees, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and the man who had a vow on his last journey to Jerusalem. And when they heard the narrative of his conversion from his own lips, they might have remarked that to one of his temperament only could such an event have happened, and would have noted many superficial resemblances which showed him to be the same man, while the great inward change which had overflowed upon the world was hid from their eyes. The gifts of God to man have ever some reference to natural disposition. He who becomes the servant of God does not thereby cease to be himself. Often the transition is greater in appearance than in reality, from its very suddenness. There is a kind of rebellion against self and nature and God, which, through the mercy of God to the soul, seems almost necessarily to lead to reaction. Persons have been worse than their fellow-men in outward appearance, and yet there was within them the spirit of a child waiting to return home to their fathers house. A change passes over them which we may figure to ourselves, not only as the new man taking the place of the old, but as the inner man taking the place of the outer. So fearfully and wonderfully are we made, that the very contrast to what we are has often an inexpressible power over us. It seems sometimes as if the same religious education had tended to contrary results; in one case to a devout life, in another to a reaction against it; sometimes to one form of faith, at other times to another Perhaps we shall not be far wrong in concluding, that those who have undergone great religious changes have been of a fervid, imaginative cast of mind; looking for more in this world than it was capable of yielding; easily touched by the remembrance of the past, or inspired by some ideal of the future. When with this has been combined a zeal for the good of their fellow-men, they have become the heralds and champions of the religious movements of the world. The change has begun within, but has overflowed without them, When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, is the order of nature and of grace. In secret they brood over their own state; weary and profitless, their soul fainteth within them. The religion they profess is a religion not of life to them, but of death; they lose their interest in the world, and are cut off from the communion of their fellow-men. While they are musing, the fire kindles, and at the last–they speak with their tongue. Then pours forth irrepressibly the pent-up stream–unto all and upon all their fellow-men; the intense flame of inward enthusiasm warms and lights up the world. First, they are the evidence to others; then, again, others are the evidence to them. All religious leaders cannot be reduced to a single type of character; yet in all, perhaps, two characteristics may be observed;

(1) great self-reflection;

(2) intense sympathy with other men.

Such men have generally appeared at favourable conjunctures of circumstances, when the old was about to vanish away, and the new to appear. The world has yearned towards them, and they towards the world. They have uttered what all men were feeling; they have interpreted the age to itself. Often such men have been brought up in the faith which they afterwards oppose, and a part of their power has consisted in their acquaintance with the enemy. They see other men like themselves formerly, wandering out of the way in the idols temple, amid a burdensome ceremonial, with prayers and sacrifices unable to free the soul. They lead them by the way themselves came to the home of Christ Great men are sometimes said to possess the power of command, but not the power of entering into the feelings of others. They have no fear of their fellows, but neither are they always capable of immediately impressing them or of perceiving the impression which their words or actions make upon them. Often they live in a kind of solitude on which other men do not venture to intrude; putting forth their strength on particular occasions, careless or abstracted about the daily concerns of life. Such was not the greatness of St. Paul; not only in the sense in which he says that he could do all things through Christ, but in a more earthly and human one was it true, that his strength was his weakness, and his weakness his strength. His dependence on others was in part, also, the source of his influence over them. His natural character was the type of that communion of the Spirit which he preached; the meanness of appearance which he attributes to himself, the image of that contrast which the gospel presents to human greatness. Glorying and humiliation, life and death, a vision of angels strengthening him, the thorn in the flesh rebuking him, the greatest tenderness not without sternness, sorrows above measure, consolations above measure, are some of the contradictions which were reconciled in the same man. The centre in which things so strange met and moved was the Cross of Christ, whose marks in his body he bore; what was behind of whose afflictions he rejoiced to fill up. Let us look once more, a little closer, at that visage marred in his Masters service. A poor decrepit being, afflicted, perhaps, with palsy, certainly with some bodily defect,–led out of prison between Roman soldiers, probably at times faltering in his speech, the creature, as he seemed to spectators, of nervous sensibility; yearning, almost with a sort of fondness, to save the souls of those whom he saw around him,–spoke a few eloquent words in the cause of Christian truth, at which kings were awed, telling the tale of his own conversion with such simple pathos, that after ages have hardly heard the like. (B. Jowett, M. A.)

Early life of St. Paul

The Apostle Paul was probably born in the later years of Herod, or early in the short reign of Archelaus, when, under the sway of the emperor Augustus, the Roman world was at peace, and when the wickedness of the imperial despotism had not yet fully developed itself. The pirates who had infested the Eastern Mediterranean had been sternly suppressed. The Jewish people were still enjoying everywhere ample toleration under the Roman rule, and a Jewish family like St. Pauls, settled at Tarsus in Cilicia, would have been in sufficiently comfortable circumstances. For Tarsus was a free city of the Empire; that is to say, it was governed by its own magistrates, and was exempted from the annoyance of a Roman garrison; but it was not a colony like Philippi in Macedonia, and the freedom of Rome, which St. Paul says he had at his birth, would probably have been earned by some services rendered by his father during the civil wars to some one of the contending parties in the State. It is at least probable from the expression, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, which he applies o himself, that his parents were originally emigrants from Palestine. We know that they were of the tribe of Benjamin, and that they were strict members of the Pharisee sect. Probably his father was engaged in the Mediterranean trade. To his mother, it is a remarkable circumstance, there is not one reference in his writings, He had a sister whose son lived in later years at Jerusalem, and who would have been his playmate at Tarsus. The Talmud says that s fathers duty toward his boy is to circumcise him, to teach him the law, and to teach him a trade. We know from the Epistle to the Philippians that the first of these precepts was accurately complied with on the eighth day after the childs birth. The second would probably have been obeyed by sending the boy, not to one of the Greek schools in which Tarsus abounded, but to a Jewish school attached to one of the synagogues, where, after the age of five, he would have learnt the Hebrew Scriptures,–at ten those floating maxims of the great Jewish doctors which were afterwards collected in the Mishna, so as, at thirteen, to become what was called a Subject of the Precept, after a ceremony which was a kind of shadow of Christian confirmation. The third requirement was complied with by setting him to make tents out of the hair-cloth supplied by the goats which abounded on the slopes of the neighbouring mountains of the Taurus, and which was a chief article in the trade of the port–tents which to this day, according to Beaufort, are used largely by the peasantry of south-eastern Asia Minor during the harvesttime. At or soon after thirteen the little Saul would have been sent from home, probably in a trading vessel bound from the port of Tarsus for Caesarea, on his way to Jerusalem. Already, as a boy, the Holy City must have possessed for him an interest surpassing any which could be raised by any other place on earth. Every great festival would have been followed by the return of one or more of his countrymen to Tarsus, full of the inspiration of the sacred sights, full of the splendour of the new temple, full of the fame and learning of the great doctors of the law. Especially he would have heard much of the two rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, of which the former exalted tradition above the letter of the law, while the latter preferred the law to tradition when they clashed. Of these the school of Hillel was much the more influential, and when St. Paul was a boy or a young man its one great ornament was Gamaliel, who was evidently one of those men whose candour, wisdom, and consistent elevation of character would have secured him influence in any society, or in any age of the world. It was at the feet of Gamaliel, St. Paul tells us, he was brought up; and this expression at the feet of Gamaliel exactly recalls to us the manner in which the Rabbinical Assemblies of the Wise, as they were termed, were held. The teacher sat on a raised platform,–the pupils on low seats, or on the floor beneath. At this period of St. Pauls life we are, to a certain extent, in the region of conjecture; but it is, upon the whole, scarcely doubtful that he would have returned to Tarsus in the prime of manhood, before he reappeared in Jerusalem as a member of the synagogue which was connected with, or maintained by, the Jews in Cilicia. This visit would have completed his acquaintance with the language, and to a certain limited extent with the literature, of Greece. At this time in his life, too, St. Paul would probably have become familiar with that large section of the Jews of the dispersion whose centre was Alexandria, who in everything but religion were nearly Greeks, whose religion was taking more and more of the Greek dress every day This education was moulding and developing a character which may be described by one single word–intensity. There was much besides. There was sensitiveness; there was impetuosity; there was courage; there was independence; but, in all that he did, Paul of Tarsus, before his conversion as well as after it, threw his whole energy, whether of thought or resolution, into his work. (Canon Liddon.)

Confession of former wrongdoing

I man may make his past sins known out of pride, but also out of humility. Whoever does not boast himself of the same, but humbles himself therefore before God, and willingly bears the shame of them before men, not relying upon himself, makes a good confession, but one not needful to be uttered before every man, as sometimes it would bring more scandal than benefit. (Quesnel.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 13. Ye have heard of my conversation] . My manner of life; the mode in which I conducted myself.

Beyond measure I persecuted the Church] For proofs of this the reader is referred to Ac 9:1-2 (note); Ac 22:4 (note), and the notes there. The apostle tells them that they had heard this, because, being Jews, they were acquainted with what had taken place in Judea, relative to these important transactions.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

It will be no difficult thing for you to believe, that I had never preached the gospel without a Divine revelation of the truth of it, if you do but reflect upon my former conversation; for you cannot but have heard, that I was born a Jew, educated in the Jewish religion, and was a zealous defender of it, so as I persecuted the Christians beyond measure. This unmeasurable persecution is expressed by Luke more particularly, Act 8:3; He made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison; and Act 9:1; He breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, &c. He wasted the church like an enemy that useth fire and sword, and all means to destroy. The word here used is , which signifies to make a devastation; the word used in Act 8:3 is both words signify the most ruinating hostile actions. And this he saith was his conversation, or constant practice, so as they might reasonably think that something more than human had made a change in him, that he should now be a preacher of that doctrine, which he had before so abominated as that his whole business was to root out those that professed it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

13. heardeven before I cameamong you.

conversation“myformer way of life.”

Jews’ religionTheterm, “Hebrew,” expresses the language;“Jew,” the nationality, as distinguished from theGentiles; “Israelite,” the highest title, the religiousprivileges, as a member of the theocracy.

the churchHeresingular, marking its unity, though constituted of many particularchurches, under the one Head, Christ.

of Godadded to markthe greatness of his sinful alienation from God (1Co15:19).

wastedlaid it waste:the opposite of “building it up.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past,…. His manner and course of life, in his state of unregeneracy, how diametrically opposite his education and behaviour, his principles and practices, were to the Gospel; which show that he had not received it, nor was he taught it of men. This they might have heard of, either from himself, when he first preached among them, who was very free to acknowledge his former sins and errors; or from the Jews, who were scattered abroad in the several countries; and it may be, from them, who were forced to fly to strange cities, and perhaps to some in Galatia, on account of his persecution: now his life and conversation, before his conversion, were spent

in the Jews’ religion; or “in Judaism”. He was born of Jewish parents, had a Jewish education, was brought up under a Jewish doctor, in all the peculiarities of the Jewish religion, and so could have received no hints, not in a notional way, of the truths of the Gospel; which he might have done, had he been born of Christian parents, and had had a Christian education: besides, he was brought up in the religion of the Jews, not as it was founded and established by God, but as it was corrupted by them; who had lost the true sense of the oracles of God committed to them, the true use of sacrifices, and the end of the law; had added to it a load of human traditions; placed all religion in bare doing, and taught that justification and salvation lay in the observance of the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders: add to this, that he was brought up in the sect of the Jewish religion, Pharisaism, which was the straitest sect of it, and the most averse to Christ and his Gospel; so that he could never receive it, or have any disposition to it from hence; so far from it, that he appeals to the Galatians, as what they must have heard,

how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God; which he now knew, and believed to be the church of God; though then he did not, but rather a synagogue of Satan; and this he mentions, as an aggravation of his sin, under a sense of which he was humbled all his days: when he is said to persecute it “beyond measure”, the meaning is not, as if there were any lawful measure, or due bounds of persecution, but that he persecuted the saints in a most violent and outrageous manner, beyond all others that were concerned with him: the church of God at Jerusalem is particularly designed, and the members of it, the disciples of Christ; whom he hated, and committed to prison, and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against, and destroyed: wherefore it follows, and wasted it; or destroyed it; as much as in him lay, he sought to do it, though he was not able to effect it entirely; he made havoc of it, dispersed its members, caused them to flee to strange cities, persecuted them to death, gave his voice against them to have them punished and put to death: such an aversion had he to the followers of Christ, and the Christian doctrine.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

My manner of life ( ). Late word in this sense from Polybius on from . In the older writers it meant literally “return” or “turning back.” See 1Pe 1:15. It is absent in this sense in the papyri though the verb is common.

In the Jews’ religion ( ). “In Judaism.” The word in N.T. only here and next verse, already in II Macc. 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; IV Macc. 4:26. In these passages it means the Jewish religion as opposed to the Hellenism that the Syrian Kings were imposing upon the Jews. So later Justin Martyr (386 D) will use for Christianity. Both words are made from verbs in –.

Beyond measure (‘ ). “According to excess” (throwing beyond, ).

I persecuted (). Imperfect active, “I used to persecute” (see Ac 7-9 for the facts).

Made havock of it ( ). Customary action again, imperfect of old verb , to lay waste, to sack. In N.T. only here, verse 23, and Ac 9:31 (used by Christians in Damascus of Saul after his conversion of his former conduct, the very word of Paul here). Paul heard them use it of him and it stuck in his mind.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Conversation [] . Better, manner of life. See on 1Pe 1:15.

In the Jews ‘ religion [ ] . Only here and verse 14. Lit. in Judaism. It signifies his national religious condition. In LXX, 2 Macc. 2 21; 8 2; 14 38; 4 Macc. 4 26.

Beyond measure [ ] . P?. Lit. according to excess. The noun primarily means a casting beyond, thence superiority, excellency. See 2Co 4:7, 17. It is transliterated in hyperbole. For similar phrases comp. 1Co 2:1; Act 19:20; Act 3:17; Act 25:23.

Wasted [] . Better, laid waste. In Class. applied not only to things – cities, walls, fields, etc. – but also to persons. So Act 9:21.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For ye heard of my conversation,” (ekousate gar ten emen anastrophen) “For you all heard of my conduct,” course of early life, how he breathed out threatenings and slaughter “death threats,” against the disciples, Act 9:1; 1Ti 1:13.

2) “In times past in the Jews’ religion,” (pote en to loudaismo) “then, in past times, in Judaism,” how that he was a zealot, practical “hot-head”, hating and persecuting Christians, even to death, as follows.

3) “How that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God,” (hoti kath’ huperbolen ediokon ekklesian tou theou) “That I persecuted the church of God excessively,” Act 7:58; Act 8:1; Act 8:3; Act 22:3; Act 22:20.

4) “And wasted it,” (kai eporthoun auten) “and wasted it,” brought it to waste, a matter of conscious regret that seemed to follow Paul to the end of his life; He “wasted” the church in the sense that he brought great grief, hurt, division, and obstruction to her people and their worship and service to God, as described in the passages above, 1Ti 1:13.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

13. For ye have heard of my conversation. The whole of this narrative was added as a part of his argument. He relates that, during his whole life, he had such an abhorrence of the gospel, that he was a mortal enemy of it, and a destroyer of the name of Christianity. Hence we infer that his conversion was divine. And indeed he calls them as witnesses of a matter not at all doubtful, so as to place beyond controversy what he is about to say.

His equals were those of his own age; for a comparison with older persons would have been unsuitable. When he speaks of the traditions of the fathers, he means, not those additions by which the law of God had been corrupted, but the law of God itself, in which he had been educated from his childhood, and which he had received through the hands of his parents and ancestors. Having been strongly attached to the customs of his fathers, it would have been no easy matter to tear him from them, had not the Lord drawn him by a miracle.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Gal. 1:14. Exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.St. Paul seems to have belonged to the extreme party of the Pharisees (Act. 22:3; Act. 23:7; Act. 26:5; Php. 3:5-6), whose pride it was to call themselves zealots of the law, zealots of God. A portion of these extreme partisans, forming into a separate sect under Judas of Galilee, took the name of zealots par excellence, and distinguished themselves by their furious opposition to the Romans.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gal. 1:13-14

A Zealous Ritualist

I. Is conspicuous for his adherence to religious formalities.For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews religion (Gal. 1:13)of my manner of life formerly in Judaism. Saul of Tarsus was a full-blown ritualist, and a master-leader in the art, setting the pattern to all his contemporaries. He did not play at forms and ceremonies. Their observance was to him a matter of life and death. An intense nature like his could do nothing by halves. The listlessness and pictorial parade of modern ritualism he would have denounced with withering scorn. Religious formality has for some minds an irresistible fascination. It appeals to the instinct of worship which is latent in all, and to the love of stheticism which is shared by most in varying degrees. The votary deludes himself into the belief that signs and symbols represent certain great truths; but the truths soon fade away into the background, and he is in turn deluded in regarding the outward ceremonies as everything. Formality is the tendency of the mind to rest in the mere externals of religion to the neglect of the inner life of religion itself. It is the folly of valuing a tree for its bark instead of its goodly timber, of choosing a book for its ornate binding irrespective of its literary genius, of admiring the finished architecture of a building regardless of its accommodation or the character of its inmates. There are two ways of destroying Christianity, says DAubign; one is to deny it, the other is to displace it. Formality seeks to displace it. Ritualism may be of use in the infantile stage, either of the world or the individual. It is a reversion to the petrifaction of ancient crudities. A robust and growing spiritual manhood is superior to its aids.

II. Violently opposes the representatives of genuine piety.How that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it (Gal. 1:13). Animated by extravagant zeal for the religion of his forefathers, the bigoted Pharisee became the deadliest enemy of the Church of Christ in its infant days. Indifferent to personal peril or to the feelings of the oppressed, he prosecuted his work of destruction with savage energy. He was a type of the Jewish fanatics who afterwards thirsted and plotted for his life, and the forerunner of the cruel zealots of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber in later times. The curse of ritualism is excessive intolerance. Blinded and puffed up with its unwarrantable assumptions, it loses sight of the essential elements of true religion. It sees nothing good in any other system but its own, and employs all methods that it dare, to compel universal conformity. It admits no rival. It alone is right; everything else is wrong, and all kinds of means are justifiable in crushing the heresy that presumes to deny its supreme claims. Christ and Ritualism, says Horatius Bonar, are opposed to each other, as light is to darkness. The cross and the crucifix cannot agree. Either ritualism will banish Christ or Christ will banish ritualism.

III. Is distinguished by his ardent study and defence of traditional religionism.And profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers (Gal. 1:14). The apostle had studied the Mosaic law under the ablest tutors of his day. He knew Judaism by heart, and won a distinguished reputation for learning and for his strict adherence to the minutest details of traditional legalism. He was one of the ablest champions of the Mosaic system. The zealous ritualist spends his days and nights in studying, not the word of God, but the sayings of men and the rules of the Church handed down by the traditions of past generations. Divine revelation is ignored, and human authority unduly exalted. His studies are misdirected, and his zeal misspent. He is wasting his energy in defending a lifeless organism. No man can honestly and prayerfully study Gods word and catch its meaning, and remain a mere ritualist.

Lessons.

1. Ritualism, is the worship of external forms.

2. It breeds a spirit of intolerance and persecution.

3. It supplants true religion.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Gal. 1:13-14. Mistaken Zeal

I. May create a reputation for religious devotion.Ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews religion (Gal. 1:13).

II. Breeds the spirit of violent persecution.How that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it (Gal. 1:13).

III. Makes one ambitious for superiority.Profited above many my equals, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers (Gal. 1:14).

IV. Is neither good nor wise.

V. Stores up a retrospect of bitter and humiliating regret.

Review of a Misspent Life.

1. A sincere convert will not shun to make confession of his wicked life, not omitting anything which may tend to a just aggravation of it, not in a boasting manner, but that the freedom of Gods grace may be commended.
2. That the Scriptures were indited by the Spirit of God, and the penmen not actuated with human policy, appears from this, with other evidences in the Scripture itself, that they concealed not their own faults, but blazed them to the world when the glory of God did so require.
3. Though the Church of God, as to the inward estate, cannot be utterly wasted, neither can the outward state be so far decayed as to cease to be, yet the Lord may so far give way to the rage of persecutors that the outward face and beauty of the Church may be totally marred, the members partly killed, partly scattered, the public ordinances suppressed, and the public assemblies interrupted.
4. The life and way of some engaged in a false religion may be so blameless and, according to the dictates of their deluded conscience, so strict, as that it may be a copy unto those who profess the true religion and a reproof for their palpable negligence.
5. As our affections of love, joy, hatred, anger, and grief are by nature so corrupt that even the choicest of them, if not brought in subjection to the word by the Spirit, will lay forth themselves upon forbidden and unlawful objects, so our zeal and fervency of spirit will bend itself more toward the maintenance of error than of truth. Error is the birth of our own invention; so is not truth.Fergusson.

True and False Zeal.

I. Zeal is a certain fervency of spirit arising out of a mixture of love and anger, causing men earnestly to maintain the worship of God and all things pertaining thereto, and moving them to grief and anger when God is in any way dishonoured.

II. Paul was zealous for the outward observance of the law and for Pharisaical unwritten traditions.

III. He himself condemns his zeal because it was against the word, and tended to maintain unwritten traditions, and justification by the works of the law, out of Christ. What Paul did in his religion we are to do in the profession of the gospel.

1. We are to addict and set ourselves earnestly to maintain the truth of the gospel.
2. We are to be angry in ourselves and grieved when God is dishonoured and His word disobeyed.
3. We are not to give liberty to the best of our natural affections as to zeal, but mortify and rule them by the word.Perkins.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Proof of its divine origin. Gal. 1:13-24

a) His early life was adverse to the gospel. Gal. 1:13-14

TEXT 1:13, 14

(13) For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: (14) and I advanced in the Jews religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

PARAPHRASE 1:13, 14

13 To convince you of this, I appeal to my behaviour, both before and after I was made an apostle. Ye have heard, certainly, in what manner I behaved formerly, while I professed Judaism; that I exceedingly persecuted the church of God, and laid it waste.

14 And my enmity to the gospel was occasioned by my making progress in Judaism, (Act. 22:3), above many who were of the same age with myself in mine own nation; being more exceedingly zealous than any of them in maintaining the traditions of my fathers, in which, as a Pharisee, I placed the whole of religion.

COMMENT 1:13

beyond measure

It was not a limited persecutionhe went all out.

This zeal against the church spread his reputation as a persecutor.

my manner of life in time past

He was of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. Php. 3:5

He was zealous for the law, as were all good Pharisees.

I persecuted the church

Paul consented to Stephens death. Act. 8:1

Because I persecuted the church of God. 1Co. 15:9

I was before a blasphemer and a persecutor, and injurious. 1Ti. 1:13

. . . letters to bring them unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. Act. 22:4-5

the church of God

Several names of the church are revealed in scripture.

The ChurchUniversal, Act. 9:31

Church of GodPlanner. 1Co. 1:2

Church of the first bornHonor. Heb. 12:23

Body of ChristActivity. 1Co. 12:27

Churches of ChristOwnership. Rom. 16:16

Churches of saintsCharacter. 1Co. 14:33

Churches of the gentiles. Rom. 16:4

Observe the significance of church names today.

They honor men.

They honor doctrines.

They honor forms of church government.

made havoc of it

This, of course, refers to the people and not the buildings.

This was a strike against the authority of Christ.

Gave him to be head over all things to the church. Eph. 1:22-23

All authority hath been given unto me. Mat. 28:18

Why persecutest thou me? Act. 9:4

COMMENT 1:14

advanced in the Jews religion

Was Paul the rich young ruler?

There are some who feel that he was.

Paul was called and was kicking against the goad. Act. 26:14

There is a possibility that this began when he went sorrowing away from Christ.

Hear what he says about himself:

I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Rom. 11:1

If any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. Php. 3:4-6

being more exceedingly zealous

Who else would travel like Paul to stamp out heresy as he was doing to the church?

Zeal characterized Paul, out of the church and in it, against it and for it.

for the traditions

What does tradition mean?

It can mean doctrine of Godhold fast the traditions (1Co. 11:2).

It may mean doctrines of men as well as doctrines of the law here.

What were some traditions of men?

Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for enlarging the borders of their garments.

The scribes and Pharisees held to wrong Sabbath observances, and condemned Christ for:

Healing. Mat. 5:1-10

Casting out demons. Luk. 13:10-16

Plucking ears of grain. Mat. 12:1-8

my fathers

This may mean the patriarchsAbraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

It may mean his own immediate religious fathers.

Perhaps Gamaliel, Pauls highly respected teacher, is meant. There stood up one in the council a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in honor of all the people . . . Act. 5:34 I am a Jew . . . brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law. Act. 22:3

Paul had a respect for his teachers, even though they were wrong.

WORD STUDY 1:14

Zealous (zeloteszay LOW tase) is literally being a zealot or fanatic. This word is also found describing Simon the Canaanean in Act. 1:13, who was fanatical in a political sense.

STUDY QUESTIONS 1:13, 14

76.

What is meant by beyond measure?

77.

Tell of Pauls past.

78.

Was he a trouble maker then?

79.

What did he persecute?

80.

What names does he give to the church?

81.

Is there a name or are there names for the church?

82.

Why are there scriptural names for the church?

83.

Do we need to give new names to Gods church?

84.

How did Paul make havoc?

85.

Discuss Pauls advancement.

86.

How did he compare to others in zeal?

87.

What does the word tradition mean?

88.

Is it always a bad word when used religiously?

89.

Name some traditions condemned by Jesus.

90.

Do we have false teachers teaching them today?

91.

Is a false teaching less evil when accepted by a respected denomination?

92.

What does he mean by fathers?

b) His separation, call and early preaching were not from men. Gal. 1:15-17

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(13) Ye have heard.Rather, ye heard. It was indeed notorious; but the Apostle may be referring to the fact that he himself usually (see Act. 22:3-21; Act. 26:4-20; 1Co. 15:8-10) brought his own career and experiences into his preaching, so that they may have heard it from his own lips.

My conversation . . . in the Jews religion.How I behaved in the days of my Judaism. The phrase Jews religion (literally, Judaism) is not used with any sense of disparagement.

Wasted it.The same word is translated destroyed in Act. 9:21 : Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(13, 14) Proof that the doctrine of the Apostle is derived from God and not from man, in that it could not be accounted for by his antecedents and education, all of which told against, rather than for, a Christian belief of any kind.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

13. Ye have heard Rather, ye heard; that is, ye heard it from me, narrated in my preaching to you. See note, Act 22:1. Paul, by showing how he was converted, and from what deep anti-Christianity, shows men how they are to be converted. This is experimental religion.

Conversation The word implies the entire mode of life.

Jews’ religion Literally, Judaism.

Persecuted Pursued as a chasing warrior.

Wasted Devastated, usually spoken of ravaging or devastating a country or city. He paints his own sin in vivid words, prompted by deep penitence.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For you have heard of the way I lived in the past in the Jewish religion, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure, and made havoc of it. And I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age in my race, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’

For as a dedicated and well trained Pharisee (Php 3:6) he had given his approval to the stoning of Stephen (Act 8:1) and had been so inflamed against Christians and against their teaching that he had gone to the authorities and had been given authority, and armed support, to enable him to persecute them, entering their houses and hauling them off to prison (Act 8:3). He had been convinced that their message was blasphemous. Indeed he had been so successful that nothing further had needed to be done there, for the people of ‘the Way’ went into hiding or left Jerusalem, so that he then sought permission to do the same in Damascus as he had in Jerusalem (Act 9:1-2). What then could convince such a man that he was wrong? The answer is that it was because he came face to face with the One Whom he was denying, the One Who was the Truth, risen and alive, and it happened in such a way that he could no longer deny Him.

‘The Jew’s religion.’ This was the very source of the ‘new’ ideas that were being pressed on the Galatians. He points out that he knew all about it, for it was what he had previously stood for and had believed in. It was something on which he was an authority, and for which he had once felt very strongly. But he had turned from it because of his vivid revelation from God. And he now recognised its emptiness.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gal 1:13. In the Jews’ religion; This does not signify the religion originally taught by Moses, but that which was practised among the Jews at this time, and much of it built upon the tradition of the elders. Grotius.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 1:13 . Now begins the historical proof that he was indebted for his gospel to the he had mentioned, and not to human communication and instruction. In the first place, in Gal 1:13-14 , he calls to their remembrance his well-known conduct whilst a Jew; for, as a persecutor of the Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the less fitted for human instruction in the gospel, which must, on the contrary, have come to him in that superhuman mode.

] emphatically prefixed, indicates that what is contained in Gal 1:13-14 , is something already well known to his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not to be proved.

] my previous course of life in Judaism , how I formerly behaved myself as a Jew. is not Judaistic zeal and activity (Matthies, “when I was still out and out a Jew;” comp. Schott), but just simply Judaism , as his national religious condition: see 2Ma 2:21 ; 2Ma 8:1 ; 2Ma 14:38 ; 4Ma 4:26 . It forms the historical contrast to the present of the apostle. Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes . 8, 10, Philad . 6.

in the sense of course of life, behaviour , is found, in addition to the N.T. (Eph 4:22 ; 1Ti 4:12 , et al .) and the Apocrypha ( Tob 4:14 ; 2Ma 5:8 ), only in later Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82. 1. See Wetstein.

.] a definition of time attached to , in which the repetition of was not necessary. Comp. Plat. Legg . iii. p. 685 D, . Soph. O. R . 1043, . Phi 1:26 . Comp. also on 1Co 8:7 and on 2Co 11:23

. . .] a more precise definition of the object of , that I , namely, beyond measure persecuted , etc. On , the sense of which bears a superlative relation to , comp. Rom 7:13 ; 1Co 12:31 ; 2Co 1:8 ; 2Co 4:17 ; Bernhardy, p. 241.

] added in the painful consciousness of the wickedness and guilt of such doings. Comp. 1Co 15:9 ; 1Ti 1:13

] is not to be understood de conatu (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Menochius, and others); Paul was then actually engaged in the work of destruction (Act 22:4 , comp. Act 9:1 , Act 26:10-11 ), and therefore it is not to be understood (with Beza, Piscator, Estius, Winer, Usteri, and Schott) merely as vastavi, depopulatus sum (Hom. Od . xiv. 264, , et al .). Paul wished to be not a mere devastator, not a mere disturber (see Luther’s translation), but a destroyer [26] of the church; and as such he was active (Hom. Il . iv. 308, , et al .). Moreover, in the classic authors also and are applied not only to things, but also to men (comp. Act 9:21 ) in the sense of bringing to ruin and the like. See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot . p. 340 A; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj . 1187; Jacobs, Del. epigr . i. 80.

[26] [Nicht bloss Verstrer , sondern Zerstrer .]

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

(13) For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: (14) And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (15) But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, (16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. (21) Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; (22) And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: (23) But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. (24) And they glorified God in me.

What a beautiful and affecting history the Apostle hath here given of himself. It is indeed but short, but it is strikingly interesting. He takes it up from the days of his unregeneracy; and makes no reserve, in describing the bitterness of his mind at that time, against the faith of Christ. Paul tells the Galatians, that they had heard of his conversation, when in the Jews’ religion, how he had persecuted the infant Church of Christ. Reader! it is a very high proof of a change of heart, when the soul looks back, and takes pleasure, in ascribing glory to God’s grace; at the same time taking shame in acknowledging our own undeservings. And, in ministers, and preachers of the word, I believe nothing is so likely, under grace, to win souls to Christ, as by showing how the Lord first graciously wrought on our own.

Paul, having shown what he once was by nature, next proceeds to show, what he then was by grace. And he runs it up to the fountain-head of mercy, in declaring, that it was God’s free grace, and nothing of his own deserving. When it pleased God (said he) who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me! Reader! There is a set time to favor Zion! Psa 102:13 . And, it is blessed to behold, that He, who is the God in nature and in providence, is the same also in grace. He who separates from the womb of nature, did long before separate in the womb of eternity his chosen ones. And he who appoints the time of their birth in nature, hath marked their time in the new birth of grace. As it was by Christ, so it is by all the members of his mystical body. When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son. Gal 4:4 . And when the fullness of time is come, for the recovery of Christ’s members from the Adam-nature of sin; God sends forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, whereby we cry Abba Father! So minutely doth the Lord attend to all the concerns of his people!

Reader! it is to rob our souls of comfort, when we rob Christ of glory. Oh! had we eyes to see, or hearts to contemplate, things as they are, we should not confine our thoughts respecting Christ, to the act of redemption. Redemption is but part of His office-work. It is the Son of God’s work, in his union with our nature, to reign in, and rule over, all the departments of nature, providence, grace, and glory. He is the head over all things to the Church, which is his body: the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. Eph 1:23 . It will be well, if you and I can bear testimony to the same work of the Lord, in all the departments of it, as it concerns ourselves; and say, as Paul did: He who separated me from my mother’s womb, hath called me by his grace!

I admire the Apostle’s expression, in his account of a saving, and effectual call, when he terms it, to reveal his Son in me. He doth not say merely to me, but in me. Not simply opening to the Apostle’s view who Christ is; neither showing to Paul his infinite fullness, and suitability: but in him; that is, giving the Apostle an apprehension of Christ, and Paul’s right in him. Reader! do not hastily pass away from this distinguishing feature of personal grace. Many hear of Christ, and in this sense may be said to have an outward revelation of him; but Paul’s was, and so must every child of God’s be, an inward manifestation in him. Job, ages past, marked the vast difference, in his own experience, when he said: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear. Thus do thousands, and go no further. But now (saith Job) mine eye seeth thee. Similar to Paul: God revealed his Son in me. Here is the sweet mark of God’s children. Job 42:5 .

And, what makes this in-revelation so truly blessed, in distinction to all outward proclamations, is the assurance it brings with it, that all the Persons of the Godhead do graciously concur, and cooperate in this gifted mercy. God (saith Paul, meaning the Father,) revealed his Son in me. And it is God the Son which reveals himself to his people, for so he promised; and so it is said: in thy light shall we see light. Joh 14:21 ; Psa 36:9 . For as the sun in nature, in his own light, gives light to the objects in nature: So the Sun of Righteousness, in grace, gives light from his own light, whereby we discover his divine light, shining in our souls. And no less, God the Holy Ghost becomes a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: Eph 1:17 . Indeed, all the knowledge we have of each Person of the Godhead, is from each other, concerning each other, and by each other. No man hath seen God at any time. But the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Joh 1:18 . In like manner, it is said, no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wilt reveal him. Mat 11:27 . And Jesus, in promising the Holy Ghost, declared, that when He was come, he should make known both the Father and the Son to his people. At that day, (saith Christ,) ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Joh 14:20 ; Reader! what saith your heart’s experience to these things? Paul here tells you; that at the time God, who separated him from his mother’s womb, was pleased to call him by his grace; that then, he revealed his Son in him. Hath it been so with you? Depend upon it, he that separated in nature, is the same which sets apart in grace. Hath he so wrought in you? Have you seen, and do you now see, the glory of God as it relates to your own soul, in the face of Jesus Christ?

I must not, in a work of this kind, enlarge upon all the particulars, to which Paul refers in his history. But if the limits of the Poor Man’s Commentary would admit of it, many sweet subjects arise out of them. His authority to preach, his faithfulness in preaching, his abstractedness from all human teaching, and the glory the Churches gave to God, both for his wonderful conversion, and his call to the ministry; these would lead to very inprovable, and profitable discourse. But, having already swollen the observations on this Chapter beyond the usual length, I add no more.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

XVI

SAUL, THE PERSECUTOR

Act 7:57-60 ; Act 8:1-4 ; Act 22:4-5 ; Act 22:19-20 ; Act 26:9-11 ; 1Co 15:9 ; Gal 1:13 ; Gal 1:22-24 .

In a preceding chapter on Stephen we have necessarily considered somewhat a part of the matter of this chapter, and now we will restate only enough to give a connected account of Saul. In our last discussion we found Saul and other members of his family residents in Jerusalem, Saul an accomplished scholar, a rabbi, trained in the lore of the Jewish Bible and of their traditions, a member of the Sanhedrin, an extreme Pharisee, flaming with zeal, and aggressive in his religion, an intense patriot, about thirty-six years old, probably a widower, stirred up and incensed on account of the progress of the new religion of Jesus.

In considering this distinguished Jew in the role of a persecutor, we must find, first of all, the occasion of this marvelous and murderous outbreak of hatred on his part at this particular juncture, and the strange direction of its hostility. On three all-sufficient grounds we understand why Saul did not actively participate in the recent Sadducean persecution. First, the issue of that persecution was the resurrection, and on this point a Pharisee could not join a Sadducean materialist. Second, the motive of that persecution was to prevent the break with Rome, and Saul as a Pharisee wanted a break with Rome. Third, the direction of that persecution was mainly against the apostles and Palestinian Christians, who, so far, had made no break with the Temple and its services and ritual, or the customs of Moses. To outsiders they appeared as a sect of the Jews, agreeing, indeed, with the Pharisees on many points, and while they were hateful in their superstition as to the person of the Messiah, they were understood to preach a Messiah for Jews only and not for Gentiles. That is why Saul did not join the Sadducean persecution because of the issue of it, because of the motive of it, and because of the direction of it.

1. Five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor: First, the coming to the front of Stephen, the Hellenist, whose preaching evidently looked to a Messiah for the world, and not only looked to a break with Jerusalem and the Temple, but the abrogation of the entire Old Covenant, or at least its supercession by a New Covenant on broad, worldwide lines that made no distinction between a Jew and a Greek. That is the first cause of the persecuting spirit of Saul.

2. Stephen’s Messiah was a God-man and a sufferer, expiating sin, and bringing in an imputed righteousness through faith in him wrought by the regenerating Spirit, instead of a Jewish hero, seated on David’s earthly throne, triumphant over Rome, and bringing all nations into subjection to the royal law. This is the difference between the two Messiahs. So that kind of a Messiah would be intensely objectionable to Saul.

3. Stephen’s preaching was making fearful inroads among the flock of Saul’s Cilicean synagogue, and sweeping like a fire among the Israelites of the dispersion, who were already far from the Palestinian Hebrews.

4. Some of Saul’s own family were converted to the new religion, two of them are mentioned in the letter to the Romans as being in Christ before him, and his own sister, judging from Act 23 , was already a Christian.

5. Saul’s humiliating defeat in the great debate with Stephen.

These are the five causes that pushed the man out who had been passive in the other persecution, now to become active in this persecution. They account for the vehement flame of Saul’s hate, and the direction of that hate, not toward the apostles, who had not broken with the Holy City, its Temple, its sacrifice, nor the customs of Moses, but against Stephen and those accepting his broader view. We cannot otherwise account for the fact that Saul took no steps in his persecution against the apostles, while he did pursue the scattered Christians of the dispersion unto strange cities.

We may imagine Saul fanning the flame of his hate by his thoughts in these particulars:

1. “To call this Jesus ‘God’ is blasphemy.

2. “To call this convicted and executed felon ‘Messiah,’ violates the Old Testament teaching of David’s royal son triumphing over all of his enemies.

3. “That I, a freeborn child of Abraham, never in bondage, must be re-born, must give up my own perfect and blameless righteousness of the law to accept the righteousness of another, is outrageous.

4. “That I must see Jerusalem perish, the Temple destroyed, the law of the Mosaic covenant abrogated, and enter into this new kingdom on the same humiliating terms as an uncircumcised Gentile, is incredible and revolting.

5. “That this Hellenist, Stephen, should invade my own flock and pervert members of my own family, Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen [Rom 16:7 ], and my own sister [Act 23:16 ], and shake the faith of my other kinsmen, Jason and Sosipater [Rom 16:21 ], is insulting to the last degree.

6. “That I, the proud rabbi, a member of the supreme court of my people, the accomplished and trained logician, should be overwhelmed in debate by this unscholarly Stephen, and that, too, in my own chosen field the interpretation of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, is crucifixion of my pride and an intolerable public shame. Let Stephen perish!

7. “But more humiliating than all, I find myself whipped inside. This Stephen is driving me with goads as if I were an unruly ox. His words and shining face and the Jesus he makes me see, plant convicting pricks in my heart and conscience against which I kick in vain; I am like a troubled sea casting up mire and filth. To go back on the convictions of my life is abject surrender. To follow, then, a logical conclusion, is to part from the counsel of my great teacher, Gamaliel, and to take up the sword of the Sadducee and make myself the servant of the high priest. Since I will not go back, and cannot stand still, I must go forward in that way that leads to prison, blood, and death, regardless of age or sex. Perhaps I may find peace. The issue is now personal and vital; Stephen or Saul must die. To stop at Stephen is to stop at the beginning of the way. I must go on till the very name of this Jesus is blotted from the earth.”

That is given as imagined, but you must bring in psychology in order that you may understand the working of this man’s mind to account for the flaming spirit and the desperate lengths of the persecution which he introduces.

Seven things show the spirit of this persecution, as expressed in the New Testament:

1. In Act 8:3 (Authorized Version), the phrase, “making havoc” is used. That is the only time in the New Testament that the word “havoc” is found. It is found in the Septuagint of the Old Testament. But it is a word which expresses the fury of a wild boar making havoc a wild boar in a garden: rooting, gnashing, and trampling. That phrase, “making havoc,” gives us an idea of the spirit that Saul had, which is the spirit of a wild boar.

2. In Act 9:1 , it is said of Saul, “Yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter.” How tersely expressed that is! The expiration of his breath is a threat, and death. Victor Hugo, in one place, said about a man, “Whenever he respires he conspires,” and that is the nearest approach in literature to this vivid description of the state of a man’s mind that the very breath he breathed was threatenings and slaughter.

3. The next word is found in Act 26:11 . He says, “being exceedingly mad against them.” That is the superlative degree. He was not merely angry at the Christians, but it was an anger that amounted to madness; he was not merely mad but “exceedingly mad.” So that gives you the picture of that wild boar.

4. “He haled men and women.” “Haled” is an old Anglo Saxon word. We don’t use it now, but it means “to drag by violence.” He didn’t go and courteously arrest a man; he just went and grabbed men and women and dragged them through the streets. Imagine a gray-haired mother, a chaste wife, a timid maiden, grabbed and dragged through the streets, with a crowd around mocking, and you get at the spirit of this persecution.

5. The next word is “devastate.” Paul used this word twice, and Ananias used it once (Act 9:21 ). That word is the term that is applied to an army sweeping a country with fire and sword. We say that Sherman devastated Georgia. He swept a scope of country seventy-five miles wide from Atlanta to the sea, leaving only the chimney stacks not a house, not a fence with fire and sword. And that word is here employed to describe Saul’s persecution.

6. Twice in Galatians he uses this word in describing it: “I persecuted them beyond measure,” that is, if you want to find some kind of a word that would describe his persecution, in its spirit, you couldn’t find it; you couldn’t find a word that would mean “beyond measure.”

7. The last phrase is in Act 22:4 , “unto death.” That was objective in spirit, whether men or women. These seven expressions, and they are just as remarkable, and more so, in the Greek, as they are in English, give the spirit of this persecution.

The following things show the extent of this persecution:

1. Domiciliary visits. He didn’t wait to find a man on the streets acting in opposition to any law. He goes to the houses after them, and in every place of the world. The most startling exercise of tyranny is an inquisition into a man’s home. The law of the United States regards a man’s home as his castle, and only under the most extreme circumstances does the law allow its officers to enter a man’s home. If you were perfectly sure that a Negro had burglarized your smokehouse, and you had tracked him to his house, you couldn’t go in there, you couldn’t take an officer of the law in there, unless you went before a magistrate and recorded a solemn oath that you believed that he was the one that did burglarize your place, and that what he stole would be found if you looked for it in his house.

2. In the second place, “scourges.” He says many times I have scourged them, both men and women, forty stripes save one; thirty-nine hard lashes he put on the shoulders of men and women. Under the Roman law it was punishable with death to scourge a Roman citizen. Convicts, or people in the penitentiary, can be whipped. Roman lictors carried a bundle of rods with which they chastised outsiders, but on home people they were never used. Cicero makes his great oration against Veres burn like fire when it is shown that Veres scourged Roman citizens. Seldom now do we ever hear of a case where a man is dragged out of his house and publicly whipped by officers of the law, just on account of his religion.

3. The next thing was imprisonment. He says, “Oftentimes I had them put in prison.” A thunderbolt couldn’t be more sudden than his approach to a house. Thundering at the door, day or night, gathering one of the inmates up, taking him from the home and taking him to jail. What would you think of somebody coming to your house when you were away in the night, and dragging your wife and putting her in jail, just because she was worshiping God according to the dictates of her conscience? We live in a good country over here. We have never been where these violent persecutions were carried on.

4. He says that when they were put to death he gave his voice against them. He arrested them and scourged them, and then in the Sanhedrin he voted against them.

5. In the next place he compelled them to blaspheme. The Greek doesn’t mean that he succeeded in making them blaspheme, but that he was trying to make them blaspheme. For instance, he would have a woman up, and there was the officer ready to give her thirty-nine lashes in open daylight: “You will get this lashing unless you blaspheme the name of Jesus,” Paul would say. Pliny, in writing about the Christians in the country over which he presided when he was ordered to persecute the Christians, says, “I never went beyond this: I never put any of them to death if when brought before me he would sprinkle a little incense before a Roman god. If he would Just do that I wouldn’t put him to death.”

6. Expatriation, ex , from, patria terra , “one’s fatherland” exiled from one’s country. It was an awful thing on those people at a minute’s notice either to recant or else just as they were, without a minute’s preparation, to go off into exile, father, mother, and children. The record says, “They were all scattered abroad except the apostles.”

7. Following them into exile into strange countries, and cities, getting a commission to go after them and arrest them, even though they had gotten as far from Jerusalem as Damascus.

8. The last thing in connection with the extent of this persecution is to see, first, the size or number of the church. Let us commence with 120 (that is, before Pentecost), add 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, add multitudes daily, add at another time 5,000 men and women, add twice more, multitudes, multitudes, then we may safely reach the conclusion that there were 100,000 Jewish communicants in that first church at Jerusalem. That represents a great many homes. This man Paul goes into every house, he breaks up every family. They are whipped; they are imprisoned; they are put to death or they are expatriated; and over every road that went out from Jerusalem they were fleeing, the fire of persecution burning behind them. The magnitude of the persecution has never been fully estimated.

There are eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters that show his own impressions of this sin. One of them you will find in the address that he delivered on the stairway in Jerusalem when he himself was a prisoner (Act 22 ); another one is found in his speech at Caesarea before King Agrippa (Act 26 ). You will find two references in Gal 1 of the letter to the Galatians (1:13, 23) ; there is one in 1Co 15:15 ; another in Phi 3 ; still another, and a most touching one, when he was quite an old man (1 Timothy). We may judge of the spirit and the extent of a thing by the impression that it leaves on the mind of the participator.

Everything that he inflicted on others, he subsequently suffered. He had them to be punished with forty stripes save one; five times he submitted to the same punishment. He had them put in prison; “oftentimes” he was imprisoned. He had them expatriated; so was he. He had them pursued in the land of expatriation; so was he. He had them stoned; so was he. He attempted to make them blaspheme; so they tried to make him blaspheme under Nero, or die, and he accepted death. He had them put to death; so was he. Early in his life, before a great part of his sufferings had yet commenced, we find his catalogue of the things that he suffered in one of the letters to the Corinthians, and just how many particular things that he had suffered up to that time.

Two considerations would naturally emphasize his unceasing sorrow for this sin:

1. His persecution marked the end of Jewish probation, the closing up of the last half of Daniel’s week, in which the Messiah would confirm the covenant with many. From this time on until now, only an occasional Jew has been converted. Paul did it; he led his people to reject the church of God and the Holy Spirit of God, the church which was baptized in the Spirit, and attested by the Spirit. He, Saul, is the one that pushed his people off the ground of probation and into a state of spiritual blindness judicial blindness from which they have not yet recovered.

2. The second thought that emphasized this impression was that he thereby barred himself, when he became a Christian, from doing much preaching to this people. In Rom 9 he says, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” “I bear them witness,” he says in the next chapter, “that they have a zeal for God,” and in Act 22 he says that when he was in the Temple wanting to preach to Jews, wanting to be a home missionary, God appeared to him, and said, “Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me.” That was one of the most grievous things of his life, and we find it, I think (some may differ from me on this), manifested in the last letter of his first Roman imprisonment the letter to the Hebrews. He wouldn’t put his name to it. He didn’t want to prejudice its effect, and yet he did want to speak to his people.

Let us compare this persecution with Alva’s in the Netherlands, and the one following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In a few words, it is this: There were two great bodies of Christian people, so-called, in France the Romanists and the Huguenots. Henry of Navarre was a Huguenot. He became king of France, outwardly abjuring his Huguenot principles, but on the condition that liberty of conscience should be allowed to the people. His grandson, Louis XIV, revoked that great edict of toleration, and by its revocation, in one moment, commanded hundreds of thousands of his people to adopt the king’s religion. If they didn’t, troops or soldiers were placed in their homes with the privilege of maltreating them, and destroying their property, without being held responsible for any kind of brutal impiety that they would commit. Their young children were taken away from the mothers and put in the convents to be reared in the Romanist faith; the men had their goods confiscated, and in hundreds of thousands of instances were put to death. They were required to recant or leave France at once. Before they got to the coast an army came to bring them back, and when some of them did escape, my mother’s ancestors, the Huguenots, when that edict was revoked, came to South Carolina. Some of them went to Canada, some to other countries where there was extradition. The Romanists pursued them, and when they were able to capture them, brought them back to France to suffer under the law. Some of those that reached Canada left the settlements and went to live among the Indian tribes. There they were pursued.

When Alva came into the Netherlands (Belgium and Holland), the lowlands, under Philip, the King of Spain, the inquisition was set up and he entered the homes; he made domiciliary visits; he compelled them to blaspheme; he put to death the best, the most gifted, those holding the highest social and moral positions in the land, to the astonishment of the world. With one stroke of his pen he not only swept away all of their property, but anyone that would speak a kind word to them, or would keep them all night in the house, such a person was put to death. All over that country there was the smoke going up of their burning, and the bloodiest picture in the annals of the world was what took place when Alva’s soldiers captured a city. I would be ashamed before a mixed audience to tell what followed. The devastation was fearful.

This persecution illustrates the proverb, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” Whenever Saul put one to death, a dozen came up to take the place of that one. Indeed, he himself caught on his own shoulders the mantle of Stephen before it hit the ground, as God put the mantle of Elijah on Elisha, and as God made John the Baptist the successor in spirit to Elijah. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

The effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom, and on missions, was superb. Those Jewish Christians in Jerusalem those terrapins would never have crawled away from there, if Saul hadn’t put fire on their backs, but when the fire began to burn and they began to run, as they ran, they preached everywhere. It was like going up to a fire and trying to put it out by kicking the chunks. Whenever a chunk is kicked it starts a new fire. When that persecution came, then Philip, driven out, preached to the Samaritans. Then men of Cyrene, pushed out, preached to Greeks in Antioch, and they opened up a fine mission field. Peter himself, at last, was led to see that an uncircumcised Gentile like Cornelius could be received into the kingdom of God. So it had a great deal to do with foreign missions.

The effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front was marvelous. They never did come to the front in the history of the world as they did in this persecution. The apostles were left behind. The preachers right in the midst of the big meeting in which 100,000 people had been converted, were left standing there, surrounded by empty pews, with no congregation. The congregation is now doing the preaching. A layman becomes an evangelist. These people carry the word of God to the shores of the Mediterranean, into Asia Minor, to Rome, to Ephesus, to Antioch, to Tarsus, to the ends of the earth, and laymen do an overwhelming part of this work.

It is well, perhaps, in this connection to explain how Saul, in this persecution, could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority. In the case of Christ we know that it was necessary for the Jews to obtain Roman authority in order to put to death, but just as this time Pontius Pilate was recalled, the Roman Procurator was withdrawn, and a very large part of the Roman military force and the successor of Pilate had not arrived, so the Jews were left pretty much to themselves until that new procurator with new legions came to the country.

QUESTIONS 1. What of Saul already considered in a preceding chapter?

2. Why did not Saul participate actively in the Sadducean persecution?

3. What five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor?

4. How may we imagine Saul fanning the flame of his bate by his thoughts?

5. What seven things show the spirit of this persecution as expressed in the New Testament?

6. What things show the extent of this persecution?

7. What eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters which show his own impressions of this sin?

8. What were his own sufferings, in every particular? Were they such as he inflicted?

9. What two considerations would naturally emphasize the unceasing sorrow for this sin?

10. Compare this persecution with Alva’s in the Netherlands and the one following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

11. How does this persecution illustrate the proverb, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church”?

12. What was the effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom, and missions?

13. What was the effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front?

14. How do you explain that, in this persecution, Saul could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

PAUL’S EARLY LIFE BEFORE HE ENTERS THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY

Act 21:39 ; Act 22:3 ; Act 23:6 ; Act 23:34 ; Act 26:4-5 ; 2Co 11:22 ; Rom 11:1 ; Gal 1:13-14 ; Phi 3:4-6 ; 1Ti 1:12-13 ; 2Ti 1:3 .

This discussion does not make much headway in the text book, but it covers an immense amount of territory in its facts and significance. This section is found in Goodwin’s Harmony of the Life of Paul, pages 15-17, and the theme is Paul’s history up to the time that he enters the New Testament story. Saul, now called Paul, a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the sect of the Pharisees, yet a freeborn Roman citizen, by occupation a tentmaker, by office a rabbi, and a member of the Sanhedrin, was born in the city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, about the time of our Lord’s birth. Tarsus was situated on the narrow coast line of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, just under the great Taurus range of mountains, and on the beautiful river Cydnus, which has a cataract just before it reaches the city, and a fall, beautiful then and beautiful now, coming down into that fertile plain where the city goes into a fine harbor, which opens the city to the commerce of the world through the Mediterranean Sea. It was on the great Roman thoroughfare, which was one of the best roads in the world. There were two of these mountain ranges, one of them right up above the city through the Taurus range into the coast of Asia Minor, the other following the coast line, which leads into Syria. This is the way that the mountains came down close to the sea, making a certain point very precipitous, and there was a typical beach between those mountains and the sea. That road into Syria was called the Oriental way. Over the Roman thoroughfare passed the land traffic, travel and marching armies for centuries. It was in that pass that Alexander fought his first great battle against the Persians, and thus obtained an entrance into the East. It was through that pass that, marching westward, and before Alexander’s time, Xerxes the Great, the husband of Esther (mentioned in the Bible), marched his 5,000,000 men to invade Greece. I could mention perhaps fifty decisive battles in ancient history that were set and were successful conquests by preoccupation of that pass. That shows the strategical position of this city that it commanded the passes of the Taurus into Asia Minor, and the pass into Syria, and through its fine harbor came in touch with the commerce of the world on the Mediterranean Sea.

Paul says that it was “no mean city,” in size or in population. It was notable, (1) for its manufacture, that of weaving, particularly goat’s hair, for on that Taurus range lived goats with very long hair, and this was woven into ropes, tents, and things of that kind; (2) because it was the capital of the province of Cilicia; (3) because, under Rome, it was a free city, i.e., it had the management of its own internal affairs, which constituted a city a free city, like the free city of Bremer in the early history of Germany. Other cities would be under the feudal lords, but there were a number of cities free, and these elected their own burghers, and governed their own municipal matters a tremendous advantage.

Tarsus received from the Roman Emperor the privilege of being a free city. Keep these facts well in mind, especially and particularly as regards the land and sea commerce. (4) Because it possessed one of the three great world-famous universities. There were just three of them at that time: One at Tarsus; one at Alexandria, at the mouth of the Nile; and one at Athens. It was not like some other cities, remarkable for its great buildings, its public games and its works of art. You could see more fine buildings in Athens or in Ephesus or in Corinth than you had any right to look for in Tarsus. It celebrated no such games as were celebrated in the May festivals at Ephesus, and in the great Greek amphitheater in that city, or in such games as the Isthmian, celebrated in Corinth. It was not remarkable for any of these. Its popular religion was a low and mixed order of Oriental paganism. There is this difference between the Oriental and Occidental heathen the former in the East, and the latter at Rome, and the West. Ephesus had an Oriental religion, though it was a Greek city. Tarsus, too, was a Greek city, but was partly Phoenician and partly Syrian. There were more arts and intellectuality in western paganism than in the Oriental, which was low, bestial, sensual, in every way brutal, shameful, immodest, and outrageous. The Phoenicians, who had a great deal to do with establishing the city of Tarsus, had that brutal, low form of paganism. That infamous emperor, Sargon, celebrated in the Bible, the Oriental king of the original Nineveh, was worshiped in that city. There never lived a man that devoted himself more than he to luxury in its fine dress, gorgeous festivals, its gluttony, its drunkenness, its beastiality. Paul was born in that city, and he could look out any day and see the heathen that he has so well described in chapter 1 of the letter to the Romans.

Citizenship in a free city under Rome did not make one a Roman citizen, as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony. To be born in a free city did not make one a Roman citizen. It conferred upon its members, its own citizens, the right to manage their own municipal affairs. To be born in Philippi would make one a Roman citizen, because Philippi was a colony. The name of its citizens were still retained on the muster roll in the city of Rome. They had all the privileges of Roman citizenship. Their officers were Roman officers. They had processions, with the magistrates, and the lictors and with the bundles of rods. But there was nothing like that in Tarsus. The question came up in Paul’s lifetime, when the commander of a legion heard Paul claiming that be was a Roman citizen. This commander says that with a great sum of money he did purchase his citizenship in Rome. Paul says, “But I was freeborn.” If freeborn, how then could he have obtained it? In one of two ways: Before Christ was born, Pompey invaded Jerusalem, and took it. He was one of the first great triumvirate, with Julius Caesar and Marcus L. Crassus. Pompey’s field of labor was in the East, Caesar’s was in the West, and he (Pompey) took Jerusalem and led into slavery many Jews of the best families. When these slaves were brought to Rome, if they showed culture, social position, educational advantages, they were promoted to a high rank or office, among slaves; and if they particularly pleased their owners they were manumitted, either during the lifetime of their owner, or by will after his death. In this way many noble captives from all parts of the world were carried as slaves to Rome. They were first set free and then had conferred upon them the rights of Roman citizenship. It could have been that Cassius, who with Brutus, after the killing of Julius Caesar, combined against Mark Anthony, and Octavius (Augustus), who became the emperor and was reigning when Christ was born, captured this city of Tarsus and led many of its citizens into Rome as slaves. Paul’s grandfather, therefore, or his father, might have been led away captive to Rome, and through his high social position and culture may have been manumitted, and then received as a citizen. Necessarily it occurred before this boy’s time, because when he was born, he was born a Roman citizen. It could be transmitted, but he had not acquired it.

There is a difference between the terms Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellenist, and a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.” All these are used by Paul and Luke in Acts. We get our word, “Hebrew” from Heber, an ancestor of Abraham. Literature shows that the descendants of Heber were Hebrews, and in the Old Testament Abraham is called “the Hebrew.” That was not the meaning of the word in New Testament times. We come to the New Testament meaning in Act 6 , which speaks of the ordination of deacons, and uses the word “Hebrew” in distinction from “Hellenist.” They both, of course, mean Jews. While a Hebrew in the New Testament usually lived in Palestine, but not necessarily, he was one who still spoke or was able to read the original Hebrew language and who practiced the strict Hebrew cult. A “Hellenist” was a Jew who had either been led into exile, or who, for the sake of trade, had gone into other nations, and settled among those people and had become liberalized, lost the use of the Hebrew tongue entirely, and neither spoke nor wrote the Hebrew language, but who spoke and wrote mainly in Greek. “Hellenist” is simply another term for “Greek.” Whether used in the New Testament Greek or the Hellenistic Greek, it means Jews living among Greek people, and who had acquired the language, and in the many respects had followed more liberal Greek customs. Then a Hebrew living in Palestine would not allow himself to be liberalized.

Paul lived out of Judea. He, his father, and indeed his grandfather, adhered strictly to all the distinguishing characteristics of the Hebrews. The “Israelite” and the “Jew” mean anybody descended from Jacob. “Israelite” commenced lower down in the descent. “Hebrew” gets its name from the ancestor of Abraham, but an Israelite was a descendant of Jacob. The distinction of “Jew” came a little later to those descendants of Jacob living in Judea. The “Hebrew of the Hebrews” means a Jew-who went to the greatest possible extreme in following the Hebrew language, cult, habits, training, and religion. He was an extremist among them.

Some people would suppose from Paul’s occupation tentmaking (he worked at that occupation, making tents with Aquila and Priscilla) that from this unskilled labor his family were low in the social position, and poor. The inference is wholly untenable. In the first place, every Jew had to have a trade, even though he were a millionaire, and Paul’s old teacher, Gamaliel, used this language: “Any kind of learning without a useful trade leads to sin.” Paul took up this trade because he lived at Tarsus. There anybody could go out and learn the trade of weaving ropes and check-cloth made out of the long hair of Mount Taurus goats. The trade would not simply satisfy the Jewish requirement, but a man could make his living by it. We see Paul a little later making his living just that way. Well for Paul that he knew something besides books.

I am more and more inclined to follow an industrial idea in systems of education. We have our schools and universities where the boys and girls learn a great deal about books, and the girl goes home and does not know how to make bread. She does not know how to rear a brood of chickens; she does not know how a house is to be kept clean, nor how to keep windows clean. The floors in the corners and in places under the beds and sofas are unswept. Boys come home that cannot make a hoe handle. They have no mechanical sense, no trade. They can neither make a pair of shoes nor a hat nor a pair of socks, nor anything they wear. And thus graduates of universities stand with their fingers in their mouths in the great byways of the world practically beggars not knowing how to do anything.

The Jews guarded against that. Let Paul fall on his feet anywhere, and withdraw from him every outside source of financial support, and he would say, “With these hands did I minister to my necessities.” He could go out and get a piece of work. He knew how to do it. All this is bearing on the social and financial position of Paul’s family. Everything indicates the high social position of his family, and that it occupied a high financial position. They did not take the children of the lowest abode and give them such an ecclesiastical training as Paul had. They did not educate them for the position of rabbi, nor let them take a degree in the highest theological seminary in the world. Paul’s family, then, was a good one.

Paul’s religious and educational advantages were on two distinct lines: Purely ecclesiastical or religious, and I can tell just exactly what it was. A little Hebrew boy five years old had to learn the Ten Commandments, and the hallelujah psalms. When six, he advanced to other things which could be specified particularly. His education commenced in the home and went on until he entered the synagogue, which trained him in all the rudiments of biblical education. When he was twelve or thirteen years old he was called “a son of the commandments.” Just like the occasion suggests when Jesus was twelve years old he had them take him to Jerusalem, and he was allowed to go into the Temple and to be with the great doctors there.

When Paul was twelve or thirteen his influential father sent him to the great theological seminary. There were two of these seminaries. One had a greater influence than the other in the city of Jerusalem. Therefore, he says, “I was brought up in this city. I was born in Tarsus, but brought up in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel.” He was a very noble character. The opposite seminary differed from this one. It was the Shammai Seminary, differing from the other on this point: The Shammai Seminary was very narrow; did not allow its pupils to know anything about literature whatsoever except religious literature. But the aged Gamaliel said to Paul and to all his other students, “There are certain classical lines along which you may study and learn.” This is the kind which Paul attended, the school of Gamaliel, graduating there and becoming a doctor of divinity, or a rabbi. He studied profoundly. This religious part of his education he got in the original Hebrew. When he and Jesus met at the time of his conversion, they spoke in the Hebrew tongue to each other. “There came a voice which said in the Hebrew [the old Hebrew tongue], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” And he answered in the Hebrew. Then, of course, he spoke and wrote in the Aramaic, which was the common dialect in Judea, and different from the Hebrew, since the Hebrew had gone altogether out of use in the ordinary speech, and almost in the ordinary reading.

The New Testament abounds in evidence of Paul’s general educational advantages. The city of Tarsus possessed one of the three great universities of the world. Did Paul take a course in that? There is no evidence that he did, and no probability that he did. For the universities in that day did not mean as much as they do today in a certain line, though I am sorry to say that the great universities of the present day are dropping back and adopting the old utterly worthless studies of the universities of that day; that is, speculative philosophy about the origin of things, and they do not know anything more when they get through than when they began. Also the Epicurean philosophy, which we now call “Darwinism,” making a speculative study of biology, botany, geology, etc., trying to prove that everything came from a primordial germ, and that man not only developed from a monkey, but from a jellyfish, and that the jellyfish developed from some vegetable, and that the vegetable is a development of some inorganic and lifeless matter.

There never was at any time in the world one particle of truth in the whole business. None of it can ever be a science. It does not belong to the realm of science.

Saul never had a moment’s time to spend in a heathen university, listening to their sophistries, and to these philosophical speculations, or vagaries. If he were living now he would be made president of some university. We learn from the Syrians that one of these universities, the one in Tarsus, had a professor who once stole something, and was put in “limbo.” Their university professors were also intensely jealous. They had all sorts of squabbles, one part in a row with another part; so that after all there was not much to be learned in the universities of those times, and after a while there will not be much in ours, if we go on as we are now going. I am not referring to any university, particularly, but I am referring to any and all, where philosophical speculations are made thee basis of botany, zoology, natural history of any kind, geology, or any kindred thing. Paul struck it in the city of Athens, its birthplace, and smote it hip and thigh.

I do not suppose at all that Paul was a student in the university of Tarsus, but that while he was at Jerusalem, and under the teaching of Gamaliel, he did study such classics as would be permitted to a Jewish mind. Hence we find in his letters expressions like this: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, Cretans are always liars,” and when at Athena he says, “Certain, even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” How could he become acquainted with those classical allusions if he had never studied such things? That chiliarch, who commanded a thousand men a legion said to Paul, “Do you speak Greek?” He had heard him speaking Greek. Of course he spoke Greek, and wrote Greek, All of his letters were written in Greek. He had learned that Greek language somewhere. He had not learned it in that university at Tarsus, but in the Seminary at Jerusalem. Take his letters and see his profound acquaintance with the Greek games of every kind. Some of them he may have attended, but he certainly knew all about them as though he had witnessed them. He may have seen only an occasional game. So he must have learned it from the literature, for he discusses every phase of it, especially the foot-racing, the combats in the arena between the gladiators, and the wrestling with the lions in the arena. His letters are full of allusions that indicate his acquaintance with the Greek literature. At Alexandria there was one of the other universities, a much greater one in its Greek literature than the university of Tarsus. Alexandria was founded by a Greek, Alexander the Great. One of the Ptolemies had a great library, the greatest library in the world, which was destroyed by the Saracens. But notice also how Paul puts his finger right upon the very center and heart of every heathen philosophy, like that of Epicureanism our Darwinism; that he debated in Athens; and note the Stoics whom he met while there, and the Platonians, or the Peripatetics. You will find that that one little speech of his, which he delivered in the city of Athens, contains an allusion which showed that he was thoroughly and profoundly acquainted with every run and sweep of the philosophic thought of the day, and anybody not thus acquainted could not have delivered that address. This is to show the general culture of his mind.

Take the mountain torrent of his passion in the rapid letter to the Galatians. Take the keen logic, the irresistibility of its reasoning, which appears in the letter to the Romans, or take that sweetest language that ever came from the lips or pen of mortal man, that eulogy on love in 1Co 13 . Then take the letter to Philemon, which all the world has considered a masterpiece in epistolary correspondence. It implies that he was scholarly. Look at these varieties of Saul’s education. He was a man whose range of information swept the world. He was the one scholar in the whole number of the apostles the great scholar and I do not see how any man can read the different varieties of style or delicacy of touch, the analysis of his logic or reasoning, which appear in Paul’s letters, and doubt that he had a broad, a deep, a high, and a grand general education.

As to Paul’s family the New Testament tells us in Act 23:16 that he had a married sister living in Jerusalem, and that that sister had a son, Paul’s nephew, who intervened very heroically to help Paul in a certain crisis of his life. And in Rom 16:7-11 are some other things that give light as to his family: “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners . . . who also have been in Christ before me.” Here are a man and a woman, Andronicus and Junias, Paul’s kinsfolk, well known to the apostles in Jerusalem, for he says, “Who are of note among the apostles.” They were influential people, and they had become Christians before Paul was a Christian. Take Rom 16:11 : “Salute Herodion my kinsman,” and Rom 16:21 : “Timothy, my fellow worker saluteth you; and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.” So here we have found six individuals who are kinspeople to Paul, and who were all members of the church at Rome. We know that much of his family, anyhow.

The things which distinguished a Pharisee from a Sadducee were of several kinds: (1) The latter were materialists, whom we would call atheists. They believed in no spirit; that there was nothing but matter; that when a man died it was the last of him. (2) There were Epicureans: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” they said. (3) Also in their political views they differed from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were patriotic, and wanted the freedom of their nation. The Sadducees were inclined to the Roman government, and wanted to keep up the servitude to the Romans. (4) The Pharisees also cared more about a ritualistic religion. They were Puritans stern, and knew no compromise, adhering strictly to the letter of the law, in every respect. If they tithed, they would go into the garden and tithe the cummin and the anise. The phrase, “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” means one who would whittle all that down to a very fine point, or an extremist on that subject. He said (Gal 1:14 ), “I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” They were just Pharisees he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He went all the lengths that they would go, and he topped them. It meant something like this: “I am a son of Abraham; I am freeborn; I have never sinned; I need no vicarious expiation for me; I need no Holy Spirit; I was never in that bunch; you need not talk or present regeneration to me; I am just as white as snow.” It followed that they were not drunkards, they were not immoral; they were chaste, and did not have any of the brutal vices.

Paul had perhaps never met Jesus. They were about the same age. Paul went to Jerusalem when he was thirteen years old, and stayed there until he graduated in the same city. Some contend from certain expressions, as, “I have known Christ after the flesh; henceforth I will know him . . . no more,” that he had known Jesus in the flesh. It will be remembered that in the public ministry of Christ he was very seldom in Jerusalem. He stayed there a very short time when he did go. His ministry was mainly in Galilee. Even in that last mighty work of his in Jerusalem there is a big account of it but it just lasted a week. And Saul may have been absent at Tarsus during that time. I think when he saw Jesus the fact that he did not recognize him is proof enough, for if he had known him in the flesh he would have recognized him. But he said, “Who art thou?” when he saw him after he arose from the dead.

Paul, before conversion, was intensely conscientious in whatever he did free from all low vice, drunkenness and luxurious gluttony and sensuality of every kind. He was a very chaste man, a very honest man, a very sincere man, a very truthful man, and all this before conversion. I take it for granted that he was a married man. An orthodox Jew would not have passed the age of twenty unmarried. He could not be a member of the Sanhedrin without marrying; and in that famous passage in Corinthians he seems to intimate clearly that he was a married man. Speaking to virgins (that means unmarried men and women and includes both of them that had never married) he says so and so; and to widows and widowers, “I wish they would remain such as I am.” It seems to me that the language very clearly shows that at that time he was a widower. Luther says that no man could write about the married state like Paul writes if he was an old bachelor. I think Luther is right; his judgment is very sound. Paul did not marry again; he remained a widower, and in the stress of the times advised other widowers and widows to remain in that state; but if they wanted to marry again to go ahead and do so; that it was no sin; but the stress of the times made it unwise; and he boldly took the position that he had a right to lead about a wife as much as Peter had, and Peter had a wife.

QUESTIONS

1. What the theme of this section?

2. What Saul’s name, nation, tribe, sect, citizenship, occupation, office, birthplace, and date of birth?

3. Give an account of Tarsus as to its political, strategical, commercial, manufacturing, educational advantages, and its popular religion.

4. Did citizenship in a free city under Rome make one a Roman citizen as did citizenship in Philippi, a colony?

5. How, then, could one obtain it?

6. Distinguish the difference between these terms: Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellinist, and a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.”

7. What the social and financial position of Paul’s family, particularly in view of his occupation?

8. What Paul’s religious and educational advantages?

9. What New Testament evidences are there of Paul’s general educational advantages?

10. What do we know about Paul’s family as seen in the New Testament?

11. Was Paul a rabbi? If so, where did he probably exercise his functions as a rabbi?

12. What is the meaning of the phrase, “Pharisee of the Pharisees?”

13. Did Paul ever meet Jesus before his death? If not, how account for it in view of the interest and publicity of the last week of our Lord’s life?

14. What was Paul’s character before conversion?

15. Was he a married man, and what the proof?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Ver. 13. And wasted it ] . As an enemy’s country with fire and sword. Mars is styled . (Homer.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

13 . . ] ye heard , viz. when I was among you: from myself: not as E. V., ‘ ye have heard .’ binds the narrative to the former verses, as in the opening of a mathematical proof.

. ] Wetst. cites Polyb. iv. 82. 1, . This meaning of the word seems (Mey.) to belong to post-classical Greek. There is no article before nor after , perhaps because the whole, .- – – – ., is taken as one, q.d. : or better, as Donaldson in Ellicott, “the position of is due to the verb included in . As St. Paul would have said , he allows himself to write . .” Mey. cites as a parallel construction, , Plato, Legg. iii. 685 D.

. . . ] for solemnity, to set himself in contrast to the Gospel, and shew how alien he then was from it ( 1Co 15:9 ).

. ] , . , . , . Chrys. But more than the mere attempt is to be understood: he was verily destroying the Church of God, as far as in him lay. Nor must we think of merely laying waste ; the verb applies to men , not only to cities and lands, cf. Act 9:21 , , Soph. Aj. 1177, and , , Plato, Protag., p. 340.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

13 2:21 .] Historical working out of this proof : and first ( Gal 1:13-14 ) by reminding them of his former life in Judaism , during which he certainly received no instruction in the Gospel from men.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 1:13 . . The Galatians had no doubt heard from Paul himself of his former persecution of the Church. How frequently it formed the topic of his addresses to Jewish hearers may be gathered from his defence of himself at Jerusalem in Act 22 , and before Agrippa in Act 26 . The rendering of this word in our versions, Jewish religion , is unfortunate: it implies a definite separation between the two religions which did not then exist, for Christians were still habitual worshippers in the synagogue; and it puts this view into the mouth of Paul, who steadfastly persisted in identifying the faith of Christ with the national religion. The word denotes the adoption of Jewish habits, language, or policy ( cf. Gal 2:14 ). So here denotes Jewish partisanship, and accurately describes the bitter party spirit which prompted Saul to take the lead in the martyrdom of Stephen and the persecution of the Church. Incidentally the partisanship was based on a false view of religion, for the narrow intolerance of the Scribes and Pharisees was a prevailing curse of Jewish society at the time; but expresses the party spirit, not the religion. Still more alien to the spirit of Paul is the language attributed to him in the next verse, I profited in the Jews’ religion (A.V.): for it indicates satisfaction at the success of his Jewish career, whereas he never ceased to regard it with lifelong remorse. His real assertion here is that he advanced beyond his fellows in sectarian prejudice and persecuting zeal a statement borne out by the history of the persecution. . This adverb is obviously attached to the preceding substantive .

The imperfects describe the course of action continuously pursued by Saul down to his conversion. . This term is likewise applied in Act 9:21 to the havoc wrought by Saul in the Church.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

conversation = manner of life. Greek. anastrophe. Occurs thirteen times, always translated conversation.

in time past. Literally at one time. Greek. pote.

in. Greek. en. App-1.

the Jews’ religion, Greek. Ioudaismos. Only here and Gal 1:14. Compare Gal 2:14. As the worship of the Father (Jehovah) at the time of Christ had degenerated into “the Jews’ religion”, so now the worship of Christ has become the religion “of Christendom.

beyond measure according to (Greek. kata) excess (Greek. hyperbole). See Rom 7:13.

persecuted = was persecuting.

wasted = was wasting. Greek. portheo. See Act 9:21.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

13-2:21.] Historical working out of this proof: and first (Gal 1:13-14) by reminding them of his former life in Judaism, during which he certainly received no instruction in the Gospel from men.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 1:13. , ye have heard) before I came to you.-, in time past) when Paul was no way desirous of promoting the cause of the Gospel.-, I wasted) This word denotes what is quite the opposite of edification [the building up of the Church].

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 1:13

For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past-They had most likely heard from Paul when he first preached the gospel to them. The reason why he now refers to his past life is to show that he had not obtained his knowledge of the gospel from any instruction which he had received in his early life, or any acquaintance he had formed with the apostles.

in the Jews religion-[This refers not to the religious beliefs, but to religious practices and to those not as they were instituted by God, but to the system of Jewish faith and worship in its perverted form as one of blind attachment to rites and traditions, bigotry, and self-righteousness. To what extent the religion of the Jews partook of this character in the time of Christ appears not only from his constant exposure of their formalism and assumption, but especially in the fact that it occurs more frequently than otherwise as synonymous with opposers of Christ and of his teachings. Of the spirit of Judaism, Paul, before his conversion, was a signal example. He declares that his persecution of the church was a fruit of this spirit, and that in the violence of his zeal he outstripped all his associates as a zealot for the traditions of the fathers.]

how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and have havoc of it:-He refers to his fierce and bitter persecution of the church of God, of which Luke says: Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord (Act 9:1), followed them to strange cities and destroyed them so far as lay in his power. Before the mob in Jerusalem who were seeking his life he said: I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prison both men and woman. (Act 22:4).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Jews’ religion

The new dispensation of grace having come in, the Mosaic system, if still persisted in, becomes a mere “Jews’ religion.”

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

ye: Act 22:3-5, Act 26:4, Act 26:5

how: Act 8:1, Act 8:3, Act 9:1, Act 9:2, Act 9:13, Act 9:14, Act 9:21, Act 9:26, Act 22:4, Act 22:5, Act 26:9-11, 1Co 15:9, Phi 3:6, 1Ti 1:13

Reciprocal: Joh 16:2 – the time Act 20:28 – the church Act 26:10 – I also Eph 3:2 – ye Eph 4:22 – former

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 1:13. -For ye heard of my manner of life in Judaism. formally commences the historical proof, and the verb beginning the sentence has the stress upon it: Ye heard, not have heard, referring to an indefinite past time. It was matter of rumour and public notoriety. His mode of life or his conduct he calls ,-literally and in Latin, conversatio, conversation in old English. He uses in Act 26:4, in reference to the same period of his life, . Comp. Eph 4:22, 1Ti 4:12, Heb 13:7, Jam 3:13, 2Ma 2:21; 2Ma 8:1. The word in its ethical sense belongs to the later Greek. Polybius, 4.82, 1. The position of is peculiar, no article as is attached to it, and it occurs after the noun. It is used with the verb in Eph 2:3, and in Eph 4:22 the phrase occurs, . In the same way, words are sometimes separated which usually come in between the article and the substantive (Winer, 20). The apostle places as he would if he had used the verb. Such is one explanation. Similarly Plato, De Leg. 685 D, , where Stallbaum says that is placed per synesin ob nomen verbale . Opera, vol. x. p. 290; Ellendt, Lex. Sophoc. sub voce. The entire phrase contains one complete idea, as the absence of the article seems to imply. Winer, 20, 2 b. As the verb is followed by , denotive of element, in 2Co 1:12, Eph 2:3, so the noun is here closely connected with a similar ; and, according to Donaldson, the position of is caused by the verb included in the noun. The element of his mode of life was-

-in Judaism, not Mosaism, not exactly the old and primitive Hebrew faith and worship, nor the modern or current theology, but rather ritualism and the mass of beliefs and traditions held by Pharisaism. The abstract noun is specialized by the article, and it occurs in 2Ma 2:21; 2Ma 14:38, 4Ma 4:26, and the correspondent verb meets us in Gal 2:14. Similarly he says, Act 26:5, , this last noun being more special and referring to worship or ceremonial. Judaism is here the religious life of the Jews or Pharisees, in its varied spheres of nutriment and service. See under Philippians 3. The apostle now honestly adduces one characteristic of his previous life in Judaism-

, -how that beyond measure I was persecuting the church of God, and was destroying it. The conjunctive , frequently used after without any intervening sentence (Madvig, 159), introduces the first special point in the apostle’s previous life in Judaism which he wishes to specify. The imperfects and are to be taken in the strict sense (Schmalfeld, 55). The second verb has been often rendered, was endeavouring to destroy. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, give it this sense- . The imperfects represent an action carried on during his state of Judaism, but left unfinished owing to his sudden conversion. He was in the very act of it when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus, and that mission to lay waste was not carried out. Nor is the meaning of the verb to be diluted, as is done by Beza, Winer, Schott, and Usteri, the last of whom says that Winer is right in denying that it means evertere, but only vastare. But Passow, Wahl, and Bretschneider give it the meaning which these expositors would soften. Examples are numerous. It occurs often in the strongest sense (Homer, Il. 4.308), is applied to men as well as cities (Lobeck, Soph. Ajax, p. 378, 3d ed.), and is sometimes associated with (Xen. Hellen. 5.5, 27). Compare Wetstein, in loc. What the apostle says of himself is abundantly confirmed. Saul,-he made havoc of the church, etc., Act 8:3; yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, Act 9:1; his mission to Damascus was, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem, Act 9:2; is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem? Act 9:21; I persecuted this way unto the death, Act 22:4; I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on Thee, Act 22:19; when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them, being exceeding mad against them, Act 26:10-11. No wonder, then, that he uses those two verbs, and prefixes to the first , one of his favourite phrases. Rom 7:13; 1Co 12:31; 2Co 1:8; 2Co 4:17. It was no partial or spasmodic effort, either feeble in itself, or limited and intermittent in operation. It was the outgrowth of a zeal which never slept, and of an energy which could do nothing by halves, which was as eager as it was resolute, and was noted for its perseverance no less than for its ardour. And he distinctly sets before his readers the heinousness of his procedure, for he declares the object of his persecution and fierce devastation to have been

-the church of God. 1Co 15:9. The possessive genitive points out strongly the sinfulness and audacity of his career. It may be added that the Vulgate reads expugnabam; and F has . This Greek was probably fashioned from the Latin. The Vulgate has, Act 9:21, expugnabat for , without any various reading in Greek codices. The object of this statement is to show that the apostle, during his furious persecution of the church, could not be in the way of learning its theology from any human source; its bloody and malignant enemy could not be consorting with the apostles as a pupil or colleague.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Gal 1:13. Conversation means conduct or manner of life, and Paul is referring to what he practiced while he was a worker in the Jews’ religion, which means that under the law of Moses. His reference to the persecution of the church of God in the past, was to show that his present defense of it was not motivated by a life-long prejudice in its favor. Beyond measure is from HUPERBOLE which is defined in Thayer’s lexicon as “preeminently; exceedingly.” Wasted is from the same Greek word as “destroyed” in Act 9:21, where the persecution by Paul is the subject. In that place it is stated that he “destroyed them which called on the name” of the Son of God. This explains in what sense the church of God may be destroyed; it is by overthrowing certain members of it. Such individual destruction of the church has always been and always will be possible, but the church as a whole is destined to live for ever. (See Dan 2:44.) It was impossible for the powers of darkness to prevent the building of the church (Mat 16:18), and the world is given assurance that Christianity will exist on earth until the second coming of Christ (1Co 15:51-52; 1Th 4:15-17).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 1:13. For ye heard (when I was with you) of my former manner of life (or, conduct) in Judaism, i.e., the Jewish religion as opposed to Christianity, the religion of the Jewish hierarchy and the Pharisaic school, not the genuine religion of the Old Testament. Paul appeals to the well-known fact of his past career as a persecutor, which formed a part of his teaching, and conclusively proved that no mere human teaching could have converted him. All his antecedents were of such a character that nothing but a divine intervention could produce so great a change.

That beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and was destroying it, or labored to destroy it (the same word as in Act 9:21). Paul intended to annihilate Christianity, was actually employed in the attempt and carried it out as far as he could (comp. Act 22:4). I persecuted this way (or, belief) even to death (Act 26:10-11).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here the apostle offers several arguments to satisfy the Galatians, that both his commission to preach the gospel, and also the gospel which he preached to them, were not from man, but our Lord Jesus Christ. And the first argument to prove it, as a convictive evidence of it, was his bitter enmity against the Christian religion, and his mighty zeal for the Jewish religion, in which he was educated and brought up: All which he mentions as a thing publicly known, leaving them to infer from thence, that so great and sudden a change could not be the effect of human persuasion, but divine revelation; In time past I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.

Where note, that although our apostle did not shun to make an open confession of his wicked life, before his conversion, that he might thereby make evident, that his conversion was immediately from God, yet he makes an open confession only of his open sins, such as they had heard of in time past, without discovering his secret sins, which had been kept from the knowledge of the world, the divulging whereof would but have multiplied scandals and stumbling-blocks unto others. To confess our secret sins to God, is safe; to confess our open sins to the world, is sufficient.

Observe farther, the commendable proficiency which St. Paul made in the Jewish religion, wherein he was educated, I profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals. He was also a zealous maintainer of the Jewish customs, and unwritten traditions, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. From St. Paul’s example we may infer, that it is a special duty incumbent upon all persons to make religion the matter of their choice; and having espoused it, to be the more serious and zealous in it; to labour to advance and grow both in the knowlege and in the practice of it; and that to a degree of eminecy, excelling and outstripping others: I profited in the Jewish religion above many my equals, or contemporaries.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Gal 1:13-14. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past As if he said, To convince you that I received the knowledge of the gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, I appeal to my behaviour, both before and after I was made an apostle; in the Jewish religion , in Judaism. The expression is well chosen; and, as LEnfant justly observes, is not intended by the apostle of the religion originally taught by Moses, and contained in his writings and those of the prophets, but, as is evident from the latter part of the next verse, of that which was practised among the Jews at this time, and consisted in a great degree in observing the traditions of the fathers, and the commandments of men. How that beyond measure , exceedingly, and with the most insatiable rage; I persecuted the church of God Whether considered as individual believers, or as persons united in religious societies and congregations; and wasted it Ravaged it with all the fury of a beast of prey. So the word , here used, signifies. And profited Made proficiency in the knowledge and practice of Judaism; above many of my equals Many of the same age with myself; in mine own nation Or who were of the same standing in the study of the law; being more exceedingly zealous of the unwritten traditions of my fathers Over and above the doctrines and precepts written in the law. These were what the evangelists and our Lord called the traditions of men, and their own traditions, (Mar 7:8-9,) to show that they were mere human inventions. It was the characteristic of a Pharisee to hold these traditions as of equal authority with the precepts of the law. Nay, in many cases, they gave them the preference. Hence our Lord told them, Mar 7:9, Full well ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may keep your own traditions. The apostle mentions his knowledge of the traditions of the fathers, and his zeal for them, as things absolutely necessary to salvation, to convince the Galatians that his preaching justification without the works of the law, could be attributed to nothing but the force of truth communicated to him by revelation. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it:

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 13

My conversation; my course of life. See Acts 9:1,2.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 4. PAULS FORMER LIFE.

CH. 1:13, 14.

For ye have heard my manner of life formerly in Judaism, that beyond measure I was persecuting the Church of God, and was laying it waste: and I was making progress in Judaism beyond many of my own age in my race, being more abundantly zealous for my paternal traditions.

Now begins historical proof, occupying the rest of DIV. I., of the statement in Gal 1:12. As a dark background for it, throwing into bold relief his subsequent career, Paul describes first his own earlier life. And this description is also the beginning of the proof. For, such terrible hostility could be overcome by nothing less than a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ye have heard: probably from Paul himself; a coincidence with Acts 22, 26, which reveal Pauls habit of narrating his conversion.

Manner of life: same word in Eph 4:22; 1Ti 4:12; 2Co 1:12; Eph 2:3; 1Ti 3:15.

Judaism: the Jewish way of living, especially in religion. So 2 Macc. viii. 1, those who had remained in Judaism, in contrast to apostates; 2 Macc. ii. 21; xiv. 38.

The Church of God: cp. 1Co 15:9. To persecute the Church is to make war against God.

Was-laying-waste: Gal 1:23 : was engaged in its utter destruction. Paul looked upon himself then as actually destroying the Church. The same word is used for destruction of cities; and, in Act 9:21, of persons.

Gal 1:14. Making progress: same word in Rom 13:12 : literally knocking forward, laboriously making oneself a way. In everything distinctive of a Jew, especially in fanatical devotion to the Law and to Jewish prerogatives, Paul was day by day going forward. This devotion, many other young men shared: but in his fervour he left them behind.

In my race: 2Co 11:26; Php 3:5. It suggests or implies that those to whom Paul wrote were for the more part not Jews.

Zealous: emulous to maintain and defend: literally a zealot, which is an English form of the Greek word here used. Same word in Luk 6:15; Act 1:13; Act 21:20; Act 22:3; 1Co 14:12; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 3:13. Of the same word, Cananaean in (RV.) Mat 10:4; Mar 3:18 is a Hebrew form. It became the name of a sect of fanatics madly jealous for what they thought to be the prerogatives of Israel.

Traditions: customs or teaching handed down verbally or in writing from one to another. See under 1Co 11:2. Cp. Mar 7:3-13; Col 2:8. 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6.

Paternal: see Diss. i. 2. That Paul says my traditions, even when comparing himself with others of his own race, suggests that he refers to something specially his own, probably to the traditional customs and interpretations of Scripture which distinguished the sect of the Pharisees. For Paul was (Php 3:5, Act 26:5) a Pharisee, a son (Act 23:6) of Pharisees. So Josephus, Antiquities bk. xiii. 10. 6, The Pharisees handed over by tradition to the people many ordinances received from the fathers: ch. 16. 2, the ordinances which the Pharisees brought in according to the paternal tradition. A sample is in Mar 7:3-13.

Notice that Pauls words about his earlier life here and 1Co 15:9; Php 3:6; 1Ti 1:13 confirm completely the statement in Act 8:3; Act 9:1; Act 9:13; Act 22:4; Act 22:19; Act 26:10.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Conversation has the thought of way of life. It is used of the wife that might win her husband by her conversation. They knew what he was like when he was out arresting Christians and hauling them off to prison. They knew of the hate that he had for believers, for Christ and Christianity.

It is not a misuse of terms when he says “in the Jews’ religion” – he seems to contrast a “religion” with his present gospel. He divorces completely the “Jews’ religion” from his belief in Christ. This would be a direct dig at the core of the teaching of the Judaizers. They were teaching that you had to mix the Old Testament Jewish concepts with the new teaching of the Messiah.

Note also for the purpose of application – Judaism is a religion in contrast to true Christianity which is a life style and relationship with Christ. We need this distinction in our witness to the world in our day. We aren’t sharing the Baptist religion, the evangelical religion or some other “religion” we are sharing the gospel that Paul shared with the Galatian people, the shed blood of Christ on the cross and his resurrection.

You can go to the early part of Acts to see the persecution that he mentions. Act 7:58 pictures Stephen’s clothes being laid at the feet of Saul when Steven was stoned. In 8:1 it states that he consented or agreed with Stephen’s death. In 8:3 we read “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed [them] to prison.” Then in 9:1 just before his conversion we read. “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

1:13 {7} For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

(7) He proves that he was extraordinarily taught by Christ himself, by this history of his former life, which the Galatians themselves knew well enough. For, he says, it is well known in what school I was brought up, even from my childhood, that is, among the deadly enemies of the Gospel. And no man may raise a frivolous objection and say that I was a scholar of the Pharisees in name only, and not in deed, for no man is ignorant of how I excelled in Pharisaism, and was suddenly changed from a Pharisee to an apostle of the Gentiles, so that I had no time to be instructed by men.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul was an unusually promising young man in Judaism before his conversion. He was surpassing his contemporaries.

"This probably does not mean that he became more pious than they, but rather that he was more highly esteemed by those in positions of influence, which would have resulted in his being entrusted with more important assignments, such as the trip to Damascus during which he was converted." [Note: Morris, p. 53.]

The apostle’s actions following that revelation on the Damascus Road supported his claim to having received a divine revelation. The whole direction of his life changed. He had violently rejected the gospel he now preached and had tried to stamp it out, believing it was blasphemous heresy. He had followed his ancestral traditions (his teachers’ interpretations of the Old Testament). Moreover he had been uncommonly zealous to obey them, to teach them, and to see that the Jews carried them out. "Beyond measure" (Gr. hyperbole) means "to an extraordinary degree."

"Paul’s extreme zeal for the law as the reason for his persecution of the Church indicates that he probably belonged to the radical wing of the Pharisaic movement, perhaps the school of Shammai (certainly, Gal 3:10 and especially Gal 5:3 are more representative of that school than of the school of Hillel). If so, the likelihood is that ’he was rather hostile to the Gentiles and had little interest in winning them for Judaism.’" [Note: Fung, p. 72. His quotation is from S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 39-40.]

"Paul’s main point in Gal 1:13-14 was to show that there was nothing in his religious background and preconversion life that could have in any way prepared him for a positive response to the gospel. Quite the contrary." [Note: George, p. 113.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles