Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:1

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense [which I make] now unto you.

Act 22:1-21. St Paul’s Defence

1. Men, brethren, and fathers ] The Greek is amply rendered (with Rev. Ver.) by “ Brethren and fathers.” See note on Act 1:16.

hear ye my defence which I make now unto you ] The Rev. Ver. substitutes the for my and puts now before make. There seems nothing gained by either change, the former of which leaves a pronoun which is in the original without anything to represent it. The A. V. does represent it, though not exactly after the manner of the Greek construction.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Men, brethren, and fathers – This defense was addressed to the Jews, and Paul commenced it with an expression of sincere respect for them. Stephen began his defense with the same form of address. See the notes on Act 7:2.

My defence – Against the charges brought against me. Those charges were, that he had endeavored to prejudice people everywhere against the Jews, the Law, and the temple, Act 21:28. In order to meet this charge, Paul stated:

1. That he was a Jew by birth, and had enjoyed all the advantages of a Jewish education, Act 22:3;
2. He recounted the circumstances of his conversion, and the reason why he believed that he was called to preach the gospel, Act 22:4-16;
3. He proceeded to state the reasons why he went among the Gentiles, and evidently intended to vindicate his conduct there, Act 22:17-21; but at this point, at the name Gentiles, his defense was interrupted by the enraged multitude, and he was not permitted to proceed.

What would have been his defense, therefore, had he been suffered to finish it, it is impossible to know with certainty. On another occasion, however, he was permitted to make a similar defense, and perhaps to complete the train of thought which he had purposed to pursue here. See Acts 22.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 22:1-21

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence.

Pauls defence

1. Whether we consider the man, the circumstances, the speech, or the effect produced, this address is worthy to be ranked among the famous speeches of the ages. Yet it was not the address of a great political leader, but the defence of a poor, friendless, manacled prisoner.

2. Most men would have desired nothing so much as to be hurried out of sight of the crowd. Not so with Paul. Barely delivered from that most terrifying of all forms of danger, the murderous fury of masses, he addresses the densely thronging thousands, who were only kept from him by a little belt of Roman swords.

3. What surroundings could have been more unfavourable–a crowded stairway for a platform, a surging, hostile mob for an audience, a manacled arm to interfere with freedom of action. But a man was behind that speech; a life of suffering and heroism, an unwavering conviction of the truth spoken, an unfathomable love for the Saviour whose cause was defended, was behind that speech. Three elements made it great.

I. Its wisdom and moderation. He must have been terribly excited when he began. He had been struggling with the mob in a hand-to-hand conflict. He knew its desperate and despicable character, and that it was on a false and malicious charge that this uproar against him had been excited. Now we should expect some terrible invective. Curran, or Grattan, or Wendell Phillips, would have withered those Jews. By nature he was as hot-tempered as any, and you would expect him to begin, Liars, hypocrites, whited sepulchres, hear my defence. But no; even that hateful mob he addresses in terms of the highest respect. Then he conciliates them still farther by speaking in their own dialect, every syllable of which was music to their ears. There is a great deal for us to learn from this exordium. When you try to convince men, find out what you have in common with them. Enlist their sympathies by showing the marks of common humanity. And in order to show this sympathy feel this kinship. Go into the slums of any great city; go to the farthest heathen shore; go into the fashionable church–with all we have something in common. We are all men and immortal sinners for whom Christ has died. In comparison with these bonds of union what are other distinctions?

II. Its simplicity. There is no attempt at rhetoric. The simple story of his conversion is told without embellishment. After all, is not this simple direct experimental way of speaking for Christ the best? Did long words and involved sentences and high-sounding phrases ever convert anyone? When Abraham Lincoln used to plead before the juries of Illinois farmers, they would say to one another, Lincoln cant make a great oration, but he can somehow show us where the truth lies. His Gettysburg address has been pronounced by the highest authority to be one of the three greatest speeches ever uttered in America, and yet there is not a word or a sentence which a boy cannot understand. No, eloquence does not consist of noise. The mob made a great deal more noise than Paul, but Paul made an address which will be read for a thousand years to come, while their wild, incoherent ravings have long since been lost in the surge of time. Is there not a thought of encouragement here? We are not equal to the eloquent oration, but we are equal to the simple recital of experience. In that may lie the most soul converting power.

III. Its truthfulness. It would have been very easy for him to colour or exaggerate the truth, and startle the superstitious fancies of his easily-excited audience. But he chose to appeal to their hearts with the simple truth. Here is a weapon which we all have for the beating down of error–the recital of a truth which we have experienced, and which has entered into our lives.

IV. Its courageous utterance. Paul concealed, modified nothing. He told his straightforward story, and left it to make its own impression. There was one word which he knew would fill his enemies with fury, that was the word Gentiles. Because of his carrying the gospel to the Gentiles this mad mob had been aroused. Now, should he declare that it was his mission to carry the gospel to them? By one word he can arouse all their passions, or, by avoiding it he can pose as an honoured and learned Pharisee. A warm abolitionist, speaking against human slavery in a Richmond slave market before the war, was never in a more perilous position than Paul if he declared or intimated any sympathy with the Gentiles. But we know what course Paul will take, and he took it. They gave him audience unto this word, and then (Act 22:22). Conclusion: This was an entirely unpremeditated speech of the apostles. He was so pervaded and filled with the love of Christ, that when taken unawares he could do nothing less than tell the old, old story. And he could have done nothing more or greater. (J. Clark.)

Pauls defence

I. Persecuting Christs Church.

1. A birthright among Gods chosen people did not keep Paul from early persecution of those who believed on Gods Son. We may have been born in a Christian land, and still not be Christians.

2. A most complete education did not restrain Paul from persecuting Christs followers. We may be college educated and still remain bigoted, ignorant, opposers of the truth.

3. A. consuming zeal only made Pauls mistaken activity the more disastrous. We had better never be zealous than to have a zeal only for the wrong.

4. A relentless determination rendered Pauls evil work of persecuting increasingly evil. We are so much the worse off for having a strong will, if it be a wrong will.

5. A hatred of the Way led Paul into the way of persecuting. If we do not love the Saviour, we shall soon find ourselves attacking those who do.

II. Hearing Christs voice.

1. The great light shone in the broad glare of noonday. The Divine glory overshadows any earthly radiance.

2. The Divine voice called the sinner by name. Christ addresses each personally, and it is a waste of time to plead that the message was intended for someone else.

3. It was Jesus who was persecuted. Our sins are chiefly not against our friends, ourselves, or our Church; but against our Saviour.

4. The true answer to the Divine warning is, What shall I do, Lord? What we have done, we may repent of–what we shall do tests the sincerity of our repentance.

5. The Lord sent Paul right on to Damascus, whither the apostle had been journeying before. Christianity doesnt take a man out of his earthly surroundings; it sends him on to Damascus, but with a new purpose and new hope.

6. The beginning of the Christian life is in faith. We must trustfully wait until we reach Damascus for Gods plans regarding our life to be unfolded.

7. The new vision of heavenly things may well blind our eyes to the things of this world.

8. The reclaimed wanderer, the regenerated persecutor, the regained evil-doer, are all sure witnesses of what power there is in the Christian life.

III. Called to Christs service.

1. We need to make haste and get to our field of Christian labour–especially if, like Paul, we have spent the early years of our life in opposing Christianity.

2. We have a right to select the home mission field as our place of labour, but if God indicates that our place is among the foreign missions, it is our duty to go thither.

3. We shall always feel hampered by the record of opposition that preceded our acceptance of Christ, but we can do thorough work for Christ nevertheless.

4. We are responsible alike for our doing and for our consenting to what others do. We may become implicated in the murder of Stephen without having cast a stone.

5. We may rightfully pause and deliberate and consider regarding our future course until God cuts it short with a peremptory Depart. Then we must at once arise and go. (S. Times.)

The legitimacy of self defence

A man must not be always defending himself, or explaining his actions, to others. Life is too short, and time is too precious for that. But there are occasions when a man owes it to himself, to his friends, and to the cause of truth, to speak out, and to make clear what is now a tangle of inconsistencies, or a web of misconceptions. It is a great thing to know when to explain, and when to let things explain themselves. Paul had wisdom from above to enable him to do the right thing in this line. Any man with the faith of Paul can have wisdom on this point from the source of Pauls wisdom. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

The defence and weapons of a man of God in troublous times

I. For himself–he has right and law which must protect him, as long as they have the power.

II. Within himself–he carries the equanimity of a good conscience, which remains undisturbed in the storm of the passions.

III. In himself–he exhibits the power of a Divinely consecrated personality, which does not fail to impress even brutal crowds.

IV. In God–he has a friend who says, No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper. (K. Gerok.)

Pauls memorable sermon at Jerusalem

I. The preacher: in chains.

II. The pulpit: the stairs to the Roman barracks.

III. The deacons who conducted him: the soldiers.

IV. The psalms which preceded the discourse: murderous outcries.

V. The congregation: an excited people.

VI. The anointing which he brings along with him: the Spirit of the Lord, as a Spirit of faith, love, wisdom, and strength. (K. Gerok.)

Paul and the bigoted Jews

1. Christians may at any time be called upon for a reason of the hope that is in them, and ought to be ready to give it, with meekness and reverence (Act 22:1; 1Pe 5:1).

2. We ought to consider in the best light even the acts of enemies (Act 22:3).

3. Prayers are often answered in ways we least expect. Not only are our greatest joys, but our keenest disappointments, experienced in Divine communion. Paul wished first to be an apostle to Jews. Even devotions must cease when the demands of duty are urgent. It is well to carry the zeal and consecration acquired in prayer into life and action. There are many tasks for which we are unprepared until we have been fired by devotion (Act 22:17-18).

4. Men are not always the best judges as to how, when, and where they shall do the most good (Act 22:19-20).

5. The distant purposes and preparations of Christianity prove its Divine character and power (Act 22:21).

6. Where there is conscious rectitude, a narrative of facts is the best defence.

7. The hardness of the heart is as supernatural as its conversion. (A. F. Muir, M. A.)

Pauls address on the stairs

In this address he–

1. Avows himself a Jew by birth and education (vers3).

2. Describes his persecuting zeal against the Christians (Act 22:4-6).

3. Narrates his miraculous conversion (Act 22:6-10).

4. Shows how his reception into the new body was by Jewish agency (Act 22:12-16).

5. Gives an account of his apostleship among the Gentiles (Act 22:17-21). In the address note that–

I. Self is criminated. Not one word is uttered in vindication of his conduct prior to conversion; on the contrary, he paints it in the darkest colours. What can any man discover in his history before conversion on which he can look with complacency?

II. Christ is honoured.

1. His conversion is ascribed to Him as it always is.

2. His commission is ascribed to Him; Christ became everything to the apostle after his conversion.

III. Conversion is memorable. Twenty-five years had passed away, and yet the incidents were fresh. So it is in all genuine cases of conversion. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Pauls sketch of his life

or how a servant of God looks back upon his life course.

1. With grateful remembrance of human benefactors (Act 22:3).

2. With penitent confession of his own erroneous ways.

3. With humble praise of the Divine gracious dealings (verse 6-16).

4. With clear consciousness of his lifes call (Act 22:18-21). (K. Gerok.)

The apostles autobiography

The apostles life, as he here sketches it, may be divided into three parts.

I. Paul persecuting Jesus. For in persecuting the disciples, he really persecuted their Lord. He persecuted–

1. Intelligently. When this hated sect was broken up in Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Stephen, he saw in a moment that the scattered fragments must be annihilated before victory was complete. In this he showed the true genius of a general. So he deliberately laid his plans to harass the scattered bands of disciples.

2. Relentlessly. All women as well as men who loved Jesus, Paul hated. He gave no quarter to any. Nothing short of Stephens death would satisfy his bloodthirsty soul. Extermination is the goal which he means to reach.

3. Consecratedly. He gave himself to this work; not his means or his thoughts only, but himself. He scorned working by proxy. How the ecclesiastics in Jerusalem must have loved him! How the Christians must have dreaded him, even as the Saracens dreaded Richard the Lion-hearted.

II. Paul prostrate before Jesus. Yes, in the very dust, on the way to Damascus. Yes, before the very Jesus, whom with all his soul he had hated. In an instant all his cherished plans were dissipated, and he cries, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? Humanly speaking, the history of the world was more changed by that incident than by any of the decisive battles of the world. We love to tell of Platea, Thermopylae, Marathon, Tours, Waterloo, and Gettysburg, but all of these have not exerted so great an influence as this battle of Jesus with Paul his enemy. It lasted but a moment, and the Pharisee was conquered once and for all. Note: Certain sceptics explain this occurrence by Pauls having been sunstruck, and that he mistook the blinding light of the sun for a Divine appearance. To which we answer, that if a sunstroke can make such preachers we had better close our theological seminaries, and set all their students out under a boiling sun. Such criticism is on a par with that of the German commentator, who says that when Jesus said to Martha, But one thing is needful, He meant, Dont cook too much, we really need only one dish.

III. Paul praying to Jesus. When a man falls prostrate before Jesus, it will not be long before he begins to pray (Act 9:11). In this prayer he evidently asked for guidance as to what he could do for Jesus. A good prayer that for a young convert. Too many merely ask for pardon, and stop. Paul also asked for orders. (A. F. Schauffler.)

Personal experience

1. We wonder what speech Paul wilt now make. Will he enter into some learned argument and confound his hearers by his heavenly eloquence? The audience is unlike any other audience he has ever addressed, and he is now in the metropolis of the land. What is his defence? He tells over again the story of his conversion, and nothing more. The sublimity of that act is without parallel. Here is no argument, criticism, erudition, but a simple statement of facts; the application being: After this, what could I do?

2. We wondered how the old story of the conversion was bearing the wear and tear of apostolic life; the answer is before us. Having gone down into the city and into the wilderness, and over the sea; having been beaten, stoned, imprisoned, the apostle ends just where he began: by telling the simple experience of his own soul. The story is just the same. Sometimes imagination plays havoc with memory; and throws its own colour upon the simplest facts of early life, and we begin to regard those facts as a dream. This is particularly the case with the religious imagination; it leads us to disown our early selves, to regard our first prayers as passionate and sentimental rather than as sober and vital. It is interesting, therefore, to find that Paul, after all the manifold experience of a missionarys life, repeats the old story exactly as it occurred in the early part of his life. Paul laced and kept both his feet on the rock of facts which had occurred in his own knowledge.

3. Christianity is not to be defended by mere argument, by the able use of elegant terms and subtle phrases; it does not challenge the world to a battle of opinions. Christianity is an incarnation; it stands up in its own living men, and says, This is my work; the controversy which I have with the world is this: produce your men and I will produce mine. The tree is known by its fruit. If the Church would stand firmly to this one point, there need be no controversy. If in an unfortunate mood you refer to some other mans case, you may be perplexed by some cross inquiry as to the order of the facts; but if you keep to your own self there is no answer.

4. The recital Paul called his defence. The defence of Christianity is not a book but a man–not an argument but a life. Of course we shall be told about the shortcomings of Christians. So be it; and still the truth remains that Christians are the defence of Christianity. You tell me that London is a healthy city! Come with me to the hospitals and I will show you every disease known in this climate. Come with me from house to house, and in nearly everyone I will find you someone sick. That kind of argument would not be admitted on sanitary questions; yet the very men who would probably reject it upon the ground of a physical kind, might be tempted to use it in relation to Christians. There are sick Christians, Christian cripples; and yet it remains true that even the weakest Christian may have about him the peculiar sign manual of heaven.

5. Here, then, is the plain line along which we must move when called upon for our defence. Men, brethren, and fathers, says some poor old mother in the Church, hear ye my defence. I was left in difficulty and trouble and sorrow; I knew not where to turn: I sat down and felt the pain of utter helplessness, when suddenly I heard a voice saying unto me, Pray to thy Father in heaven. I never had prayed just in the right way; but, at that moment, my eye brightened with hope, and I fell down, and asked the Lord to show me what He would have me to do. Suddenly there was a great light around me, and a hand took hold of mine, and ever since I have felt that I am not an orphan, but under fatherly superintendence. Sweet old mother! sit down; the philosophers can never answer that. Have you no tale to tell about the dark and friendless days; the sudden suggestion that stirred the mind; the inspiration like a flash of light at midnight; the key which has unlocked every gate ever since? Stand up and tell your tale. Let me not hear your opinions and views and speculations–keep them to yourself; but when we call for your defence read out of the pages of your heart. Herein is the secret of ardent preaching.

6. A converted man is one who is completely turned right round in every act, motive, impulse, and purpose; one who was travelling east, but is now marching straight towards the west. You could tell what turned you round–it was a death, a grief, a reading of the Book, a sermon, a singular providence, the hearing of a hymn, the touch of a child, the feeling of an inward agony. That is your defence; it is not mine; it is not another mans, probably. Every man has his own view of God, his own conception of the Cross.

7. We want more personal experience in the Church. Herein the idea of some Christian communions is sound: that we should meet one another periodically, and audibly say what God has done for the soul. And, judging by apostolic history and precedent, nothing is so convincing, so satisfactory, as for the soul to tell its own story, in its own words, and when the soul does that, the best of all sermons will be preached. Each can say, who has known Christs ministry in the soul, Once I was blind; now I see. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXII.

Paul, in his address to the people, gives an account of his

birth and education, 1-3.

His prejudices against Christianity, 4, 5.

And of his miraculous conversion, and call to the apostleship,

6-21.

The Jews, hearing him say that God had sent him to preach the

Gospel to the Gentiles, become exceedingly outrageous, and

clamour for his life, 22, 23.

The chief captain orders him to be examined by scourging; but

he, pleading his privilege as a Roman citizen, escapes the

torture, 24-29.

The next day the chief captain brings Paul before the chief

priests and their council, 30.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXII.

Verse 1. Men, brethren, and fathers] A Hebrew form of expression for brethren and fathers: for two classes only are addressed. See Clarke on Ac 7:2.

Hear ye my defense] , This apology of mine; in this sense the word apology was anciently understood: hence the Apologies of the primitive fathers, i.e. their defenses of the Christian religion. And this is as proper literal meaning; but it is now used only as implying an excuse for improper conduct. That this is an abuse of the term requires no proof.

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

Although they were wicked men, and cruel persecutors, St. Paul giveth them their titles of respect, which by the places God had put them in, are due unto them: See Poole on “Act 7:2“.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Men, brethren, and fathers,…. A common form of address used by the Jews; see Ac 7:2 but that the apostle should introduce his speech to these people in this manner, after they had treated him so inhumanly, as to drag him out of the temple, and beat him so unmercifully, is remarkable, and worthy of observation, when they scarcely deserved the name of “men”; and yet he not only gives them this, but calls them “brethren”, they being his countrymen and kinsmen according to the flesh; and fathers, there being some among them, who might be men in years, and even members of the sanhedrim, and elders of the people, that were now got among the crowd: this shows how ready the apostle was to put up with affronts, and to forgive injuries done him:

hear ye my defence, which I make now unto you; in opposition to the charges brought against him, of speaking ill of the people of the Jews, the law of Moses, and of the temple, and in order to clear himself of these imputations, and vindicate his character and conduct.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul’s First Defence.

      1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.   2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

      Paul had, in the last verse of the foregoing chapter, gained a great point, by commanding so profound a silence after so loud a clamour. Now here observe,

      I. With what an admirable composure and presence of mind he addresses himself to speak. Never was poor man set upon in a more tumultuous manner, nor with more rage and fury; and yet, in what he said, 1. There appears o fright, but his mind is sedate and composed. Thus he makes his own words good, None of these things move me; and David’s (Ps. iii. 6), I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people that have set themselves against me round about. 2. There appears no passion. Though the suggestions against him were all frivolous and unjust, though it would have vexed any man alive to be charged with profaning the temple just then when he was contriving and designing to show his respect to it, yet he breaks out into no angry expressions, but is led as a lamb to the slaughter.

      II. What respectful titles he gives even to those who thus abused him, and how humbly he craves their attention: “Men, brethren, and fathers, v. 1. To you, O men, I call; men, that should hear reason, and be ruled by it; men, from whom one may expect humanity. You, brethren of the common people; you, fathers of the priests.” Thus he lets them know that he was one of them, and had not renounced his relation to the Jewish nation, but still had a kindness and concern for it. Note, Though we must not give flattering titles to any, yet we ought to give titles of due respect to all; and those we would do good to we should endeavour not to provoke. Though he was rescued out of their hands, and was taken under the protection of the chief captain, yet he does not fall foul upon them, with, Hear now, you rebels; but compliments them with, Men, brethren, and fathers. And observe, he does not exhibit a charge against them, does not recriminate, Hear now what I have to say against you, but, Hear now what I have to say for myself: Hear you my defence; a just and reasonable request, for every man that is accused has a right to answer for himself, and has not justice done him if his answer be not patiently and impartially heard.

      III. The language he spoke in, which recommended what he said to the auditory; He spoke in the Hebrew tongue, that is, the vulgar language of the Jews, which, at this time, was not the pure Old-Testament Hebrew, but the Syriac, a dialect of the Hebrew, or rather a corruption of it, as the Italian of the Latin. However, 1. It showed his continued respect to his countrymen, the Jews. Though he had conversed so much with the Gentiles, yet he still retained the Jews’ language, and could talk it with ease; by this it appears he is a Jew, for his speech betrayeth him. 2. What he said was the more generally understood, for that was the language every body spoke, and therefore to speak in that language was indeed to appeal to the people, by which he might have somewhat to insinuate into their affections; and therefore, when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence. How can it be thought people should give any attention to that which is spoken to them in a language they do not understand? The chief captain was surprised to hear him speak Greek (ch. xxi. 37), the Jews were surprised to hear him speak Hebrew, and both therefore think the better of him. But how would they have been surprised if they had enquired, as they ought to have done, and found in what variety of tongues the Spirit gave him utterance! 1 Cor. xiv. 18, I speak with tongues more than you all. But the truth is, many wise and good men are therefore slighted only because they are not known.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Brethren and fathers ( ) Men, brethren, and fathers. The very language used by Stephen (7:2) when arraigned before the Sanhedrin with Paul then present. Now Paul faces a Jewish mob on the same charges brought against Stephen. These words are those of courtesy and dignity (amoris et honoris nomina, Page). These men were Paul’s brother Jews and were (many of them) official representatives of the people (Sanhedrists, priests, rabbis). Paul’s purpose is conciliatory, he employs “his ready tact” (Rackham).

The defence which I now make unto you ( ). Literally, My defence to you at this time. is a sharpened form (by –) of (now), just now. The term (apology) is not our use of the word for apologizing for an offence, but the original sense of defence for his conduct, his life. It is an old word from , to talk oneself off a charge, to make defence. It occurs also in Ac 25:16 and then also in 1Cor 9:3; 2Cor 7:11; Phil 1:7; Phil 1:16; 2Tim 4:16; 1Pet 3:15. Paul uses it again in Ac 25:16 as here about his defence against the charges made by the Jews from Asia. He is suspected of being a renegade from the Mosaic law and charged with specific acts connected with the alleged profanation of the temple. So Paul speaks in Aramaic and recites the actual facts connected with his change from Judaism to Christianity. The facts make the strongest argument. He first recounts the well-known story of his zeal for Judaism in the persecution of the Christians and shows why the change came. Then he gives a summary of his work among the Gentiles and why he came to Jerusalem this time. He answers the charge of enmity to the people and the law and of desecration of the temple. It is a speech of great skill and force, delivered under remarkable conditions. The one in chapter Ac 26 covers some of the same ground, but for a slightly different purpose as we shall see. For a discussion of the three reports in Acts of Paul’s conversion see chapter Ac 9. Luke has not been careful to make every detail correspond, though there is essential agreement in all three.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Defence [] . See on answer, 1Pe 3:15.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PAUL’S DEFENCE TO THE MOB, RECOUNTING HIS CONVERSION V. 1-16

1) “Men, brethren, and fathers,” (andres, adelphoi, kai pateres) “Responsible men, brethren, and fathers,” who are like me, according to the flesh, my own kindred race, of mutual decent. The term “and fathers” refers to the priests and elders” of Israel. His tone of address was conciliatory.

2) “Hear ye my defence,” (akousate mou apologias) “You all give attention to my defence,” or “hear my testimony regarding the charges,” with honest consideration, with fair play. The term “defence” is used in the legal sense of his desire to give logical, evidentiary, and testamentary evidence to sustain his Christian experience and actions – – – such as might be accepted in either a civil, criminal, or religious court of equity; Hear it from me, since I am the one charged, Php_1:17; Act 25:16.

3) “Which l make now unto you.” (tes pros humas nuni) “Which I make now and hereafter (for a while) am permitted to make to you,” which will exist to the hour of judgement, Ecc 12:14; His defence was made against false religious charges laid against him. He not only was set for the defence” of the gospel but was also ready to “fight the good fight of faith,” 1Ti 6:12; 2Ti 4:16-17. Peter called all believers to a “defence of the faith,” in charging them to “be ready always to give a reason (a logical, legally defensible reason) for the hope in them,” 1Pe 3:15.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

Though we may guess by the beginning of this speech what was Paul’s drift, yet because he was interrupted, we know not certainly what he was about to say. The sum of that part which is refitted is this, that forasmuch as he was well and faithfully instructed in the doctrine of the law, he was a godly and religious worshipper of God in the sight of the world. Secondly, that he was an enemy to the gospel of Christ, so that he was counted among the priests one of the principal maintainers and defenders of the law. Thirdly, that he did not change his sect unadvisedly; but that being tamed and convict by an oracle from heaven, he gave his name to Christ. Fourthly, that he did not embrace unknown things, but that God appointed him a faithful teacher, of whom he learned all things perfectly. Lastly, that when he was returned to Jerusalem, and sought to do good to his countrymen, God did not permit him. So that he brought not the doctrine of salvation unto foreign nations without good consideration, or because he hated his own nation, but being commanded by God so to do. −

1. Men, brethren, and fathers. It is a wonder that he giveth so great honor yet to the desperate enemies of the gospel, for they had broken all bond of brotherly fellowship, and by oppressing the glory of God, had spoiled themselves of all titles of dignity. But because Paul speaketh in this place as some one of the people, he speaketh so lovingly unto the body itself, and useth towards the heads words honorable without dissembling. And surely because their casting off was not made known as yet, though they were unworthy of any honor, yet it was meet that Paul should reverently acknowledge in them the grace of God’s adoption. Therefore, in that he calleth them brethren and fathers, he doth not so much regard what they have deserved, as into what degree of honor God had exalted them. And all his oration is so framed that he goeth about to satisfy them, freely indeed, and without flattering, yet humbly and meekly. Therefore, let us learn so to reverence and honor men that we impair not God’s right. For which cause the pope’s pride is the more detestable, who, seeing he hath made himself an high priest without the commandment of God and the consent of the Church, doth not only challenge to himself all titles of honor, but also such tyranny, that he goeth about to bring Christ in subjection; as if when God doth exalt men he did resign up his right and authority to them, and did stoop down to them. −

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE

Act 22:1-21.

OUR last chapter, like many chapters in the Bible, closed when it had no right to end. The chapters of the Bible, of course, are non-inspired. Man never does anything correctly. God never does anything incorrectly. Think of putting a chapter in where you cant even introduce a period. The last word of chapter twenty-one is followed by a comma, because it was only a catching of the breath by the Apostle. It was not the concluding of a speech, nor even the end of a sentence. It left the Apostle standing with open mouth. In fact, it would require quick work to thrust in a chapter heading without interrupting the speech itself. One feels like saying, Quiet, please, dont interrupt the Apostle; he is talking; cant you hear?

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. When such a spokesman is in the middle of a sentence, it becomes all of us to be silent. It is annoying even to hear the scratching of the reporters pen, and it is more annoying still to know that some book-maker is writing the headlines for a new chapter, and there is no occasion for a chapter at all. It is a continuation; it is not even a pause. The striking thing about this speech is that it is not what one would expect.

Paul is a born logician. Paul is the product of the best schools. Paul is a linguist of note, and for his day a scientist and a philosopher. If he speaks as a scholar we will expect from him a clear appeal to reason. If he speaks as a convert from Judaism, we will listen to an appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures. But he disappoints us in both, and defends himself as a Christian by relating his experience.

The argument from experience is just now in the ascendent. Modernists, defeated at many other points, have taken refuge in this. When they are proven to be unbiblical and to teach contrary to the views of the Christ, they fall back upon the fact that they once had an experience of His saving grace, and that is their sufficient defense.

You will find Pauls method a bit different. He will recite his experience and then prove that it is in accordance with the Book, and in that recital of an experience in conformity with Scripture, he produces an unanswerable argument, and at the same time voices his Jewish loyalty, his personal salvation, and his clear commission.

HIS JEWISH LOYALTY

This opening sentence is extremely suggestive.

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day (Act 22:1-3).

Here his nationality is thrice announced. It is announced in the fraternal expression, Men, brethren, and fathers. He was speaking to Jews and he claims kinship with them. It is announced in the language employed. They heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue. It is affirmed as a fact. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city (Jerusalem, the Jewish center,) at the feet of Gamaliel (the great Jewish teacher,) and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, (the Jewish sacred book,) and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

The Jewish people are proud of their nationality. I am grateful to God that I do not belong with them, but I readily admit that the descendants of Abraham have as good occasion of pride in ancestry as any people living. It was to this fact that the Apostle referred when he said,

If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel; of the tribe of Benjamin; an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless (Php 3:4-6).

We believe it to be a fact that the Jew is the menace of the present and the hope of the future! Consequently, we are in perfect sympathy with all that the Dearborn Independent has had to say on the subject of that menace, and we hold it historically correct; but the Dearborn Independent view is not the final view. According to prophecy the Jews present ignoble part will eventually give place to nobility of action, and the nations that are now ruled in unrighteousness by the Jew, will yet be ruled in righteousness by Jesus, the Jew becoming the prime minister of His will. Whether, then, one considers the far past when Israel was the medium of Divine revelation, or the glorious Millennium yet to break in sweetness over a sin-stained and scarred world, the Jewish nation is the one in which any one might justly be proud.

Pauls enthusiasm knew no bounds. I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women (Act 22:4). He never went about anything half-heartedly. When he was against Christ he was His deadly foe; when he becomes His convert he will prove an absolute devotee.

In this fact we find indications of character. There was nothing namby-pamby about Paul. What he believed he believed devoutly; what he attempted he did with enthusiasm. It is not difficult to respect a man of that sort. You can respect him even when he is wrong and you cant withhold your admiration when he is right. It is easier to respect the atheist or the Unitarian who openly declares his atheism or joins the Unitarian society, than it is to respect the infidel in the church, or the preacher who professes fundamentalism, but who votes always with modernists, who holds to the Virgin Birth himself, but does not believe it to be an essential doctrine, who says that he thinks the Scriptures are inspired, but hastens to tell you that inspiration is, after all, a mere definition, and may voice more than one view.

Christ Himself never voiced any admiration for middle-of-the-road men. In fact, the middle-of-the-road more and more represents a vanishing point. Many of our roads are now striped in the middle the plain suggestion that you are expected to take one side or the other. He that is not with Christ is against Him; he that gathereth not with Him scattereth abroad. You cant be friends of Christ and enemies of Christ at the same time. Saul opposed Christianity, but Paul, who is Saul converted, blazed with its proclamation and defied its every foe. Be one thing or another! There are hybrids in nature now; their number multiplies, but they are commonly the product of mans manipulation. They are seldom or never a Divine creation. Hybridism has no place in religion and no kinship to Christianity.

The fact of his faith was well and widely known.

The high priest was his witness and the whole council of the elders would bear testimony that before his conversion he was a persecutor of the faith. They had given him the letters conveying authority to bring believers bound unto Jerusalem for to be punished. They could not, they dared not deny that he was a Christ-persecutor and the sworn opponent of Christianity.

Paul illustrates the radicalism of regeneration. In truth it is a new creation. Old things pass away; all things become new. The Christian still dwells in the same body that was occupied before his conversion, but he is another man. He has the same mind, and yet, paradoxical as it may sound, he has another mind. His is altogether a new spirit; and, after all, spirit dominates body and mind. It was that fact of which Paul was thinking when he wrote,

What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (Php 3:7-9).

But Paul moves to a definite report,

HIS PERSONAL SALVATION

The record of that salvation is in Act 22:6-13, inclusive.

It came in a most unexpected moment. There are people who do not believe in sudden conversion. Such must then contend that Saul was never converted at all. What could be more sudden than for a man on his way to persecute Christians to be changed in a moment, or at the most, in a few minutes, into a disciple of the Christ?

Time is not a necessary element in Divine transactions. There are men who seem to think that the universe is of necessity billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions of years old. They come to this conclusion because they believe they know exactly how God made the same, and can even measure the growth of worlds and suns. If they admit a God at all, they make Him so much like themselves that an eternity is demanded for His accomplishments. Such men ignore the fact that God is God and that it is as easy for Him to speak a universe into existence in a second as it is to spend an eternity in constructing the same.

Paul wrote to the Hebrews, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Heb 11:3). When the time of true knowledge comes, in all probability the scientist will stand astounded to discover that God did, in a minute, what they supposed it took Him an eternity to accomplish. These same reasoners self-confessed scientistsdo not believe in a sudden conversion; they demand time. Conversion to them is education, and months and years are essential to its success.

Evidently Paul did not so believe. His education had taken years of time, but his conversion required only an increment of the hour.

It is our judgment that regeneration is a matter of only a moment. The light that dissipates darkness can break suddenly. When God speaks, it is done; whether it is a new world or a sidereal system brought into existence, or a soul saved, it is all the same!

This change came in an equally unexpected manner. About noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. How strange to have a great light burst upon one at noon! How can you have anything above the brightness of the sun, and especially a noon-day sun? If this had been a light at night, it would not have surprised us. The light shineth in darkness, but here is a light that even made the light itself seem as darkness. What light was it? It was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that is the only light that ever changed a mans heart. Neither the light of the sun, nor of all suns combined, could accomplish it; nor does the light of reason, the light of philosophy, the light of science, suffice. These are the lights that you would expect to be effective with Saul. Saul was a scholar and we commonly imagine that scholars can only be saved by superior scholarship; can only be shown a better way and convinced that they ought to walk in it, by the man of higher scientific attainmentsthe man of more eloquent logicthe man of pure reason.

Our arguments in this matter are not without historic basis. Charles Spurgeons mind was a superior one. It was a text of Scripture that convicted him. Henry Ward Beechers mind was a superior one. It was the testimony of a colored man that brought him light. Frederick W. Brown, the famous editor of the Ramshorn, was a superior man, but it was a Biblical verse that brought him low. B. H. Carroll of Texas was an intellectual giant, but it was the flash of truth from quoted Scripture that resulted in his conviction and in his conversion.

We are all wrong in supposing that the scholarly man can only be saved by scholarship. Scholarly men can only be saved by a revelation from heaven that puts his wisdom out of commission, that humbles his pride of intellect, that convicts his heart of its known iniquity. Lets be done, then, with sending scholarly men after scholarly men, and with teaching young ministers that unless they are acquainted with all the sciences they will never have any success with soul-winning. Lets rely upon the Holy Spirit, the administrator of light, and upon the sacred Scriptures, the Spirits sword. The Sauls of the world will not be saved without them.

This experience suddenly conquered his whole being. The record is, And I fell unto the ground. The old pride was gone. He was on his face now before God. He was humbled to the dust; and the further record is, And I answered, Who art Thou, Lord? How strange that he should shift from denying the Lordship of Christ to its instant acknowledgment! And yet, such is the experience of salvation! When He conies, his conquest is complete, His triumph is eternal!

We may oppose men, but who can oppose God? We stand up against the sons of men, but who will stand against the Son of God? We may answer the arguments of Reason, but who will reply to Heavens revelation?

But we take a further step in our study, and in taking it we come upon

HIS CLEAR COMMISSION

The name of this convert was changed by his own question, and the very first question that passed his lips after he fell to the ground, was, What shall I do, Lord? That question revealed the change that had been wroughtthe utter conversion, or turning about. It voiced, also, his instant acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who had been revealed to him in answer to his first question, Who art Thou?

And now note in the answers to this second question the instant and evident effects.

He was clearly sent to a certain teacher.

Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall he told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him (Act 22:10-13).

God has various ways of converting men to his Son Jesus Christ. With some it is the silent voice of the Spirit speaking in the language of the Scripture learned in youth; with others it is by the plea of a friend who beseeches in Christs Name. With some it is by a providential dealing, possibly in mercy or in judgment; with others it is through the preaching from the pulpit or the teaching in the Sunday School. But while God has various ways of bringing men to His Son, He has one specific way of building them up in knowledge of the truth, and that is by the teacher of the truth. Every new convert requires an Ananiasa devout man who knows the way himself and can reveal that more perfectly to this new-born soul.

It isnt every Christian who can teach, but God has always had His special instructors who can do for the inquirer what Philip did for the Ethiopian eunuchopen up the Scriptures and reveal Jesus; call attention to the ordinances and explain their spiritual significance; make clear the meaning of the Word and point the feet into the Christian walk.

He was clearly told the Divine intent. Thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Personal obedience is an essential to effective leadership. No man may expect to bring others into the Christian way until he himself has walked therein. Pauls baptism, therefore, must precede his attempted ministry. Even the Christian outside of the church will never be effective in getting other people into it, and the man who is himself disobedient in the matter of baptism will have no influence in bringing others to prove their friendship for Christ by doing what He has commanded them.

His commission to the Gentiles was from the Lord. Verses seventeen to twenty-one introduce another and a new conversation. Paul no longer talks to Ananias, or listens to what Ananias has to say. In a trance the Lord reveals Himself again as He had shown Himself in the blinding light, and commissions this new convert to quit Jerusalem (Act 22:18), and to set out for the remote Gentiles.

After all, that is the only commission that is binding. There is but one Head of the Church and one Administrator of its servants. All appointments are with Himthe risen and ascended One. He alone can give

some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ (Eph 4:11-15).

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 22:1. Men, brethren and fathers.Or, brethren and fathers, the use of men in English being unnecessary. Compare the commencement of Stephens address to the Sanhedrim (Act. 7:2). Conybeare and Howson (2:276) account for this peculiar mode of address by supposing that mixed with the crowd were men of venerable age and dignity, perhaps members of the Sanhedrim, ancient scribes and doctors of the law, who were stirring up the people against the heretic. More likely this was the usual way of addressing an assembly which included scribes and elders of the people (Spence). Hear my defence.The construction is not a double genitive of the thing and the personhear me and hear my defence, but a genitive of the thing; my being dependent, not on hear, but on defence. The defence consists of three parts.

Act. 22:2. In the Hebrew tongue or language.See on Act. 21:40.

Act. 22:3, which begins the first part (Act. 22:1-5), takes up the acknowledgment as to his own person which has just been made to Lysias (Act. 21:39). The best texts omit verily. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.On Gamaliel. See Act. 5:34. The scholars sat upon the ground or upon benches, the teachers upon stools (Mat. 23:2) (Holtzmann). According to this punctuation, which is commonly adopted (Calvin, Meyer, Alford, Wendt, Zckler, Holtzmann, Westcott and Hort), Paul must have removed from Tarsus to Jerusalem when a youth (compare Act. 26:4); according to a different punctuation followed by other exegetes (Griesbach, Lachmann. De Wette, Bethge, Hackett, Conybeare and Howson), the words should be rendered, at the feet of Gamaliel taught, having regard (it is said) more to physical growth, while refers rather to mental culture or professional training. But the way in which the sentences are built, the participle preceding its qualifying clause, appears to speak for the former translation as the more probable. Hausrath considers the story of Pauls studying under Gamaliel in Jerusalem as apocryphal (Der Apostel Paulus, pp. 34, 35). The perfect should be the strict manner of the law of the fathers.The word , which occurs only here (compare Act. 26:5), was the customary catchword for Pharisaic legalism (see Wis. 12:1; Jos., Ant., IX. x. 2; Wars, II. viii. 14; Life, 38). For Pauls legal strictness see his statements elsewhere (Gal. 1:14; Php. 3:5). Zealous towards God. Better, for God: like zealous for the Law (Act. 21:20). As ye all are this day.A conciliatory comparison (Alford). Must not that have constrained the Jews to the admission: This man understands us, but we understand him not (Besser).

Act. 22:4. This way.See on Act. 9:2 : He would willingly have struck down the believers in Messiah with a stroke (Holtzmann). Unto death.Or, as far as death. Not the aim merely (Meyer), but the actual result (Hackett), of his persecution (compare Act. 22:20; Act. 16:10).

Act. 22:5. The high priest of the time (Act. 9:1), Caiaphas, seems to have been still alive when Paul spoke. He, along with the elders, composed the Sanhedrim (Luk. 22:66). Unto the brethren.Not against the Christians (Bornemann), but to the Jews in Damascus (Holtzmann, Zckler, and others); specially to the Jewish rulers in the synagogues (Act. 9:2). Them which were there () meant those Jewish believers who, having fled thither (to Damascus) in consequence of the persecution (Act. 8:1), had settled there. To be punished.For apostatising from the law of their fathers.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 22:1-5

Pauls Survey of His Past Career; or, What He Was and Did before Conversion

I. His birth.

1. As to race. He was not an Egyptian (Act. 21:38), as the commander of the castle supposed, neither a Greek nor a Roman, but a Jew, a true son of Abraham (Rom. 11:4), of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews (Php. 3:5). Whatever other nations thought of the Jews, the Jews had exalted opinions of themselves, as the very salt of the earth, the flower and cream of humanity. To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the covenants of God and the promises (Rom. 9:4). If race is not everything in a mans make-up, still less is it nothing. Heredity goes back beyond immediate parentage to the family stock, and has its roots in the original race. The Jewish race was physically pure, intellectually high, and religiously strong.

2. As to place. A native of Tarsus, in Cilicia (see on Act. 9:30), and therefore a citizen of no mean city (Act. 21:39). This circumstance explained his knowledge of Greek (Act. 21:37), his acquaintance with Greek literature (Act. 17:28), and his strong sympathy with the Gentiles, and fitted him in an eminent degree for his life vocation as a missionary of the cross to the Gentiles. The place in which a man is born, no less than other factors in his terrestial environment, contributes important influences, which go to shape his career and mould his character. Most men owe more to their birthplaces than they suppose. The spot in which a man first awakes to consciousness has the earliest and therefore the best chance of making an impressionfavourable or unfavourableupon his susceptible nature.

II. His education.

1. His university. Jerusalem. Though doubtless his training commenced at home in Tarsus, he appears to have at an early period removed to the metropolis of Juda, where (this, of course, is pure conjecture) his sister (Act. 23:16) may have preceded him along with her husband. To this his parents may have assented, both because of the hallowed interest which to every pious Jew gathered round the Holy City, and because of some promise of brilliant talent which may have been detected in his opening youth.

2. His teacher. Gamaliel (see on Act. 23:34), who belonged to the school of Hillel, and had apparently great influence in the Sanhedrim (23:40). The Hillelites, who had been trained by their master to be both tolerant and broad, sometimes verging towards laxity, were supposed to be more favourably disposed towards Christianity than the Shammaites.

3. His learning. In the Law, which he was taught to regard with

(1) religious respect as the Law of God, and therefore charged with absolute authority;
(2) profound veneration, as the Law of the fathersi.e., given to the fathers of Israel (not to the sons, as modern criticism teaches!); and

(3) dutiful submission as the law of righteousness, which called for the strictest obedience to its every jot and tittle as the only means of attaining to salvation and eternal life.

III. His zeal.

1. Its nature. It was zeal for the Law, for its outward observance, for the external performances it required, the meats and drinks, and divers washings, the sacrifices and offerings, the ordinances and statutes, the rites and ceremonies, it prescribed. In regard to all these he was a Pharisee by descent (Act. 23:6), by training (Act. 26:5), and by conviction (Php. 3:6).

2. Its object. To secure the Divine favour. He was zealous for Godi.e., his zeal for the Law rested on the conviction

(1) that the Law was of Divine origin and therefore binding on the consciences of men, and especially of Jews, and
(2) that obedience to its prescriptions was the only way of attaining to Divine favour.
3. Its degree. He was as intense in his devotion to the Law and to God as they themselves were who then gnashed their teeth against him and cried, Away with him! Indeed, as touching the righteousness of the Law, he claimed to be, like themselves, blameless (Php. 3:6)a fine touch of conciliating speech!

IV. His persecution.

1. Its object. Directed against the Christians, the people of this way, both men and women. He then did what they were doing now.

2. Its character. Ferocious, bloodthirsty, murderous. Not satisfied with scattering the disciples of the Crucified from the Holy City, he caused them to be arrested and thrown into prison, without respect to age or sex; and as if that were not enough, he pursued them even unto death. Verily he had then been a ravening wolf of the tribe of Benjamin.

3. Its notoriety. This thing had not been done in a corner. The high priest of the day (probably alive when Paul spoke) and all the estate of the elders, or the whole presbyteryi.e., the entire body of the eldership, including the Sanhedrim and Senatewere cognisant of his activity and eminence in this respect. He had then been a burning and a shining light, a renowned champion of the faith, a kind of Hebrew Sir Galahad, who could have boasted

My good blade carves the casques of men,

My tough lance thrusteth sure;

My strength is as the strength of ten,

Because my heart is pure.

4. Its extent. Not content with cleansing Jerusalem, or even the Holy Land, of the apostates, as he believed them to be, he had swooped down upon them in distant Damascus, bearing with him missives, mandates, warrants, from the high priest and the Sanhedrim, empowering him to arrest them in the synagogues of that city, and fetch them, bound, to Jerusalem to be punished.

Learn

1. The accuracy of Pauls life-story as narrated by Luke 2. The vividness of Pauls recollection of his early years.

3. The courage of the apostle in making known to his countrymen the fact of his renunciation of their ancient faith.
4. The skill of the apostle in speaking so as to disarm the suspicions of his enemies.

5. The mistaken and disastrous course to which one may be led who is impelled by a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (compare Act. 26:9; Rom. 10:2

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 22:1-2. The Qualities Requisite for a Christian Orator.

I. A spirit of courage.Not of defiance or arrogance, but of calm fortitude which fears not manneither his flatteries nor his frowns, neither his threatenings nor his bribesbut rests on God as its support in the wildest hurricanes of human passion and in the most alarming dangers. Such fortitude Paul possessed when he faced the mob from the castle stairs.

II. A spirit of meekness.Not of cringing servility or of fawning adulationneither of mock humility nor of affected self-depreciation, but of genuine self-forgetfulness, which overlooks all the faults and failings of its hearers, and makes nothing of their want of consideration for or even injustice towards itself. Such meekness Paul exhibited when, though he had none but persecutors and murderers before him, he yet regarded and addressed them as brethren and fathers, on account of the covenant and promises of God.

III. A spirit of love.Not of gushing sentimentality or of sugared verbiage, but of true, manly, and religious affection, which sees in those it addresses persons who are men and brethren, of the same flesh and blood, of the same moral and religious value in the eyes of heaven, susceptible of becoming partakers of the same high blessings of salvation and eternal life as itself.

IV. A spirit of simplicity.Not of triviality or frivolity, but of holy intelligibility, which seeks not for language that will dazzle by its brilliance, but for speech that will charm by its lucidity and easiness of comprehension.

Act. 22:3-4. True Religion. What it is not and what it is.

I. What it is not.

1. Not descert from religious ancestry. Paul, though the son of a Pharisee, was yet not possessed of true religion. Grace does not run in the blood.

2. Not education by pious teachers. Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the most learned and influential rabbis of his day; yet Paul did not acquire religion. Grace is not the product of culture and training.

3. Not acquaintance with the letter of the Scriptures. Paul, thoroughly instructed in the law of Moses, both moral and ceremonial, was yet not religious. Grace is something more than mental illumination.

4. Not zeal in the performance of religious duties. Paul was so devoted to the outward rites and ceremonies of religion, and so absorbed in the pursuit of what he believed to be righteousness, that he could without hesitation describe his conformity to the law as blameless; and yet he was destitute of religion, Grace is not a matter of mere external performance.

5. Not activity in promoting and defending the faith. Paul had both, and yet was without religion. Grace is not of works.

II. What it is.The exact opposite of all these.

1. It is conditioned by a new or second birtha birth from above (Joh. 3:3). What Paul calls a new creation (2Co. 5:17).

2. It is promoted by being taught of the Spirit (Joh. 14:26), or taught by Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:21).

3. It is nourished by a spiritual acquaintance with the Scriptures (Joh. 6:63).

4. It consists in an inward conformity of the soul to the requirements of Gods law (Rom. 7:22).

5. It shows itself in a sincere desire to extend the faithnot by force of arms, but by the power of the truth.

Act. 22:3-5. The Promising but Disappointing Youth of Paul.

I. The magniflcent advantages he enjoyed.

1. In his parentage. Having been born of Jewish parents, members of the noblest and most religious race then on earth.

2. In his birthplace. In Tarsus, where he came in contact with the civilisation and culture of the most intellectual people of the Old World.

3. In his education. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, the most renowned teacher of the day.

4. In his religious instincts. Instructed according to the strict manner of the law of his fathers, he was inwardly fired with a zeal for God and religion which gave promise of splendid results in after years.

II. The miserable results he produced.

1. In the blind legalism of his religion. One would almost have expected that a youth of culture and ability like Paul would have soared away far above and beyond the dead externalism of the Pharisaic circle in which he had been born and brought up.

2. In the feline cruelty of his disposition. One would have thought that so much education as Paul had received would have mollified rather than intensified, blunted rather than whetted, the natural savageism of his soul.

3. In the low conception of his life-mission. One might naturally have anticipated that a brilliant youth like that of Pauls would have been devoted to the purifying and refining of his ancestral religion, and to the propagation of it by means of learned and eloquent expositions. Alas! it so degenerated as to place its splendid faculties at the service of the Sanhedrim, to be employed in the work of a common persecutor and assassin. To what base uses noblest souls may come!

Act. 22:4-5. Paul the Persecutor; or, the Spirit of Intolerance in Religion.

I. Whence it springs.

1. From a wrong conception of religion, which cannot be manufactured by force, and does not consist in mere external conformity to law or ritual, but must ever arise as a free product of the soul, and consist of true inward submission of the heart and life to the will of God.

2. From a mistaken idea of human nature, which cannot be coerced into such submission, but must be sweetly persuaded and lovingly wooed to yield, to the will of God.

3. From a false estimate of the rights of man. While every man has a God-given right to think for himself in religion, and to persuade his neighbour, if he can, to think along with him, no man is entitled to dictate to his brother in the sphere of conscience or punish his brother because he exercises that liberty of which he has been put in possession by God.

4. From a defective calculation of the value of persecution, which never yet made a true convert, though it has multiplied hypocrites as well as created martyrs.

II. To what it leads.

1. Suppression of all the nobler instincts of humanity. On the part of the persecutor, and not infrequently also on the part of the persecuted. It lets loose all the bad passions of the human heart, both in those who resort to violence and in those who resist it. It puts the persecutor down to the same level as the conspirator and brigand, murderer and assassin. It rouses within the persecuted feelings which are the opposite of meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering.

2. Perpetration of indiscriminate cruelty. It commonly shows itself, as in Pauls case, to be absolutely devoid of one grain of mercy, to be destitute of pity, to be fierce and bloodthirsty, sparing neither sex nor age, but involving all against whom it rages in common and undistinguished slaughter. In short, it is the minister of hell, rather than the messenger of heaven.

3. Ignominious defeat of its own aims. The more a cause is persecuted the more it multiplies and grows. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The religion that requires a sword for its propagation is not from above, but from beneath. Its final failure is foredoomed. All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword is true of the institutions for which, as well as of the persons by whom, the sword is wielded.

Act. 22:5. Mistaken Missions.

I. To persecute the cause and the people of God.
II. To propagate true religion by means of force.
III. To disseminate error, whether by lawful or unlawful means.
IV. To run on any errand without a certainty of having Heavens permission.

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

c.

Paul addresses the Jewish mob. Act. 22:1-21.

Act. 22:1

Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you.

Act. 22:2

And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith,

Act. 22:3

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day:

Act. 22:4

and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Act. 22:5

As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished.

Act. 22:6

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

Act. 22:7

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Act. 22:8

And I answered, Who are thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

Act. 22:9

And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Act. 22:10

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Act. 22:11

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus.

Act. 22:12

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there,

Act. 22:13

came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him.

Act. 22:14

And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth.

Act. 22:15

For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Act. 22:16

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on his name.

Act. 22:17

And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple; I fell into a trance,

Act. 22:18

and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me.

Act. 22:19

And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

Act. 22:20

and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him.

Act. 22:21

And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.

I like very much the outline of this speech as given by Wm. Dallmann in his book Paul page 219. In introducing the speech Dallmann has written:
Chrysostom says: What nobler spectacle than that of Paul at this moment. There he stands, bound with two chains, ready to make his defense to the people. The Roman commander sits by to enforce order by his presence. An enraged populace looks up to him from below. Yet in the midst of so many dangers, how self-possessed is he, how tranquil!

1.

Paul spoke of his birth and training as a strict Pharisee, with rare courtesy adding as ye all are this day.

2.

Paul spoke of his persecuting those of this Way, the Christians, as they well remembered.

3.

Paul told of his conversion while engaged in persecution.

4.

Paul told of his commission from God Himself to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Gentiles. That stung them to the quick. They gave him audience unto this word and then lifted up their voices and shouted: Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live! Here are a few points in this speech that I deem worthy of special note:

1.

The general knowledge of the teaching of Christ revealed in the manner in which Paul refers to it. He gives no introduction to the subject but simply refers to it as this Way.

2.

The use of the term brethren in the fifth verse. Here as in the earlier part of his speech he appears to be anxious to gain a favorable impression with these Jews if at all possible.

3.

I refer you to the harmony of the account of Pauls conversion that is given previously in Act. 9:13.

4.

The connection of baptism to the remission of sins in Act. 22:16. This same connection is found in Act. 2:38; Act. 8:38-39; Act. 8:12; Act. 16:33-34, etc. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, but was saved or forgiven when he obeyed the gospel. (2Th. 1:7-9)

5.

The vision in the temple in Jerusalem, which vision or trance is not spoken of anywhere else. (Act. 22:17-21)

That fatal wordGentiles.Up to this moment they were charmed by his use of the Hebrew language; and perchance they thought to hear some new promise of the coming Messiah, the one that would break this Roman power. Strange indeed was the record of this mans life. Paul hoped withal to free himself of the charge of a heretic. He evidently felt that what convinced him in his stubborness would persuade these Jews.

850.

How did Paul show rare courtesy on this occasion?

851.

Why so object to one word?

852.

How do we know of the general knowledge of the teachings of Christ?

853.

How is the term brethren applied in verse one?

854.

How is baptism obedience to the gospel?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XXII.

(1) Men, brethren, and fathers.The apparently triple division is really only two-foldBrethren and fathers. (See Note on Act. 7:2.) It is noticeable that he begins his speech with the self-same formula as Stephen. It was, perhaps, the received formula in addressing an assembly which included the scribes and elders.

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

Chapter 22

THE DEFENCE OF EXPERIENCE ( Act 22:1-10 )

22:1-10 “Men, brethren and fathers, listen to the defence which I now make to you.” When they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they gave him still more quietness. So he said, “I am a Jew; I was born in Tarsus; I was brought up in this city; I was thoroughly trained at the feet of Gamaliel in the Law of our fathers; I was zealous for God, just as you all are today. I persecuted this Way to death, fettering both men and women and delivering them to prison, as the high priest and the body of the elders bear me witness. I received letters from them and I went to the brethren at Damascus. to bring those who were there in chains to Jerusalem that they might be punished. As I was on my way, when I was coming near Damascus, about midday, suddenly it happened to me that a great light from heaven shone around me. I fell to the ground and I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ I answered, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the voice said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ Those who were with me saw the light but they did not hear the voice of the person who was speaking to me. I said, ‘What am I to do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me, ‘Stand up and go to Damascus, and there you will be told about all the things that have been assigned to you to do.”‘

Paul’s defence to the mob who are out for his blood is not to argue but to relate a personal experience; and a personal experience is the most unanswerable argument on earth. This defence is in essence a paradox. It stresses two things.

(i) It stresses Paul’s identity with the people to whom he is speaking. He was a Jew and that he never forgot (compare 2Co 11:22; Php_3:4-5 ). He was a man of Tarsus and Tarsus was no mean city. It was one of the great ports of the Mediterranean, standing at the mouth of the River Cydnus and being the terminus of a road which came all across Asia Minor from the far-off Euphrates. It was one of the greatest university cities of the ancient world. He was a rabbi, trained at the feet of Gamaliel who had been “the glory of the Law,” and who had died only about five years before. He had been a persecutor in his zeal for the ancestral ways. On all these points Paul was entirely at one with the audience to which he was speaking.

(ii) It stresses the difference between Paul and his audience. The root difference was that he saw Christ as the Saviour of all men and God as the lover of all men. His audience saw God as the lover only of the Jews. They sought to hug the privileges of God to themselves and regarded the man who would spread them abroad as a blasphemer. The difference was that Paul had met Christ face to face.

In one sense Paul was identified with the men to whom he spoke; in another he was separated from them. It is like that with the Christian. He lives in the world but God has separated him and consecrated him to a special task.

PAUL CONTINUES HIS LIFE STORY ( Act 22:11-21 )

22:11-21 “Because I was not able to see because of the glory of that light, I came into Damascus led by the hand by those who were with me. And Ananias, a pious man as regards the Law, a man to whose character all the Jews who live there bear witness, came to me and stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight again’; and I, in that same hour. recovered my sight, and looked up at him. He said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will. to see the Just One and to hear the voice of his mouth, because you will be a witness for him to all men of the things you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise; be baptized; and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.’ When I had returned to Jerusalem, and when I was praying in the Temple, it so happened that I was in a trance and I heard him saying to me, ‘Hurry; depart speedily from Jerusalem because they will not receive your testimony about me.’ And I said, ‘Lord, they know that it was I who, throughout the synagogues, used to throw into prison and scourge those who believe in you; and when the blood of Stephen, your witness, was shed, I too was standing by and I was agreeing to it all; and I was guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ And he said to me, ‘Get on your way for I will send you far off to the Gentiles.'”

Once again Paul is stressing, to begin with, his identity with his audience. When he reached Damascus, the man who instructed him was Ananias, a devotee of the Law whom the Jews knew to be a good man. Paul is stressing the fact that he had not come to destroy the ancestral faith but to fulfil it. Here we have one of Luke’s telescoped narratives. When we read along with this Act 9:1-43 and Gal 1:1-24, we find that it was really three years afterwards that Paul went up to Jerusalem, after his visit to Arabia and his witnessing in Damascus.

In Act 9:1-43 we were told that he left Jerusalem because he was in danger of his life from the enraged Jews; here we are told he left because of a vision. There is no real contradiction; it is the same story told from different points of view. The point Paul makes is that he did not want to leave the Jews. When God told him to do so, Paul argued. He said that his previous record would be bound to make his change all the more impressive to the Jews; but God said that the Jews would never listen to him and to the Gentiles he must go.

There is a certain wistfulness here. As with his Master, Paul’s own would not receive him ( Joh 1:11). He is literally saying, “I had a priceless gift for you but you would not take it; so it was offered to the Gentiles.”

Act 22:14 is a summary not only of the life of Paul but also of the Christian life. There are three items in it. (i) To know the will of God. It is the first aim of the Christian to know God’s will and to obey it. (ii) To see the Just One. It is the aim of the Christian daily to walk in the presence of the Risen Lord. (iii) To hear God’s voice. It was said of a great preacher that in his preaching he paused ever and again as if listening for a voice. The Christian is ever listening for the voice of God above the voices of the world to tell him where to go and what to do.

THE EMBITTERED OPPOSITION ( Act 22:22-30 )

22:22-30 Up to this statement they listened to him, and then they cried, “Destroy such a fellow from the earth, for it is not proper for him to live.” While they were shouting and waving their garments and throwing dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks. He ordered him to be examined by scourging to find out why they shouted like this against him. And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it right for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this he went to the commander and reported it. He said, “What are you going to do? This man is a Roman citizen.” The commander came to him and said, “Are you a Roman citizen?” He said, “Yes.” The commander answered “I obtained this citizenship at a great price.” But Paul said, “I was born a citizen,” So at once the men who had been about to examine him stood away from him; and the commander was afraid when he realized that he was a Roman citizen and that he had fettered him. On the next day, wishing to know the truth about the accusation made by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin to assemble; and he brought Paul down and set him before them.

It was the mention of Gentiles which set the mob ablaze again. It was not that the Jews objected to the preaching to the Gentiles; what they objected to was that the Gentiles were being offered privileges before they first accepted circumcision and the Law. If Paul had preached the yoke of Judaism to the Gentiles all would have been well; it was because he preached the grace of Christianity to them that the Jews were enraged. They took the common way of showing their disapproval; they shouted and waved their garments and threw dust in the air, in the fashion of the east.

The commander did not understand Aramaic and did not know what Paul had said; but one thing he did understand–he must not allow a riot and must deal at once with any man likely to cause a riot. So he determined to examine Paul under scourging. This was not a punishment; it was simply the most effective way of extracting either the truth or a confession. The scourge was a leather whip studded at intervals with sharp pieces of bone and lead. Few men survived it in their right senses and many died under it.

Then Paul spoke. Cicero had said, “It is a misdeed for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a crime for him to be beaten; it is almost as bad as to murder a father to kill him.” So Paul stated that he was a citizen. The commander was terrified. Not only was Paul a citizen; he was born free, whereas the commander had had to purchase his freedom. The commander knew that he had been on the verge of doing something which would have involved certainly his dismissal and not improbably his execution. So he loosed Paul and determined to confront him with the Sanhedrin in order to get to the bottom of this trouble.

There were times when Paul was ready to stand on his dignity; but it was never for his own sake. He knew his task was not yet done; gladly he would one day die for Christ but he was too wise a man to throw his life away just yet.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

3. Paul’s First Defence to the Jerusalemites , Act 22:1-23 .

1. Men We have here the first of five self-defences by Paul, recorded by Luke, (22-26.) His method of defence is the often very effective one of telling his own experience. With special wisdom in his case; for his experience and history have ever been held as a peculiar and striking demonstration of the truth of Christianity. The argument to these Jews now is: I was once, in your circumstances, a foe of Christ; you, with my experience, would be Christian.

Men brethren Best expressed in English, brother-men; men who are brethren. Fathers Probably men of age and office, of high priestly rank, were under his eye, looking down from the stairs.

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

PART THIRD.

CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.

Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.

I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.

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

“Brethren and fathers, hear you the defence which I now make to you.”

Paul opened his speech courteously, revealing in the terms of his address the Jewish respect for the elderly, and a claimed relationship with his hearers. He and they were fellow-Jews. The mention of ‘fathers’ suggests that he recognised among the crowd, to their shame, men old in years and possibly even well known figures in authority. He requested that they now hear his defence.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

PAUL’S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AND THEN TO ROME (19:21-28:31).

Here we begin a new section of Acts. It commences with Paul’s purposing to go to Jerusalem, followed by an incident, which, while it brings to the conclusion his ministry in Ephesus, very much introduces the new section. From this point on all changes. Paul’s ‘journey to Jerusalem’ and then to Rome has begun, with Paul driven along by the Holy Spirit.

The ending of the previous section as suggested by the closing summary in Act 19:20 (see introduction), together with a clear reference in Act 19:21 to the new direction in which Paul’s thinking is taking him, both emphasise that this is a new section leading up to his arrival in Rome. Just as Jesus had previously ‘changed direction’ in Luke when He set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51), so it was to be with Paul now as he too sets his face towards Jerusalem. It is possibly not without significance that Jesus’ ‘journey’ also began after a major confrontation with evil spirits, which included an example of one who used the name of Jesus while not being a recognised disciple (compare Act 19:12-19 with Luk 9:37-50).

From this point on Paul’s purposing in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome takes possession of the narrative (Act 19:21; Act 20:16; Act 20:22-23; Act 21:10-13; Act 21:17), and it will be followed by the Journey to Rome itself. And this whole journey is deliberately seen by Luke as commencing from Ephesus, a major centre of idolatry and the of Imperial cult, where there is uproar and Paul is restricted from preaching, and as, in contrast, deliberately ending with the triumph of a pure, unadulterated Apostolic ministry in Rome where all is quiet and he can preach without restriction. We can contrast with this how initially in Section 1 the commission commenced in a pure and unadulterated fashion in Jerusalem (Act 1:3-9) and ended in idolatry in Caesarea (Act 12:20-23). This is now the reverse the same thing in reverse.

Looked at from this point of view we could briefly summarise Acts in three major sections as follows:

The Great Commission is given in Jerusalem in the purity and triumph of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as King. The word powerfully goes out to Jerusalem and to its surrounding area, and then in an initial outreach to the Gentiles. Jerusalem reject their Messiah and opt for an earthly ruler whose acceptance of divine honours results in judgment (Act 19:1-12).

The word goes out triumphantly to the Dispersion and the Gentiles and it is confirmed that they will not be required to be circumcised or conform to the detailed Jewish traditions contained in what is described as ‘the Law of Moses’ (Act 13:1 to Act 19:20).

Paul’s journey to Rome commences amidst rampant idolatry and glorying in the royal rule of Artemis and Rome, and comes to completion with Paul, the Apostle, triumphantly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingly Rule of God from his own house in Rome (Act 19:21 to Act 28:31).

It will be seen by this that with this final section the great commission has in Luke’s eyes been virtually carried out. Apostolic witness has been established in the centre of the Roman world itself and will now reach out to every part of that world, and the command ‘You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth’ is on the point of fulfilment.

This final section, in which Paul will make his testimony to the resurrection before kings and rulers, may be analysed as follows.

a Satan counterattacks against Paul’s too successful Ministry in Ephesus and throughout Asia Minor and causes uproar resulting in his ministry being unsuccessfully attacked by the worshippers of ‘Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians’. This city, with its three ‘temple-keepers’ for the Temple of Artemis and the two Imperial Cult Temples, is symbolic of the political and religious alliance between idolatry and Rome which has nothing to offer but greed and verbosity. It expresses the essence of the kingly rule of Rome. And here God’s triumph in Asia over those Temples has been pictured in terms of wholesale desertion of the Temple of Artemis (mention of the emperor cult would have been foolish) by those who have become Christians and will in the parallel below be contrasted and compared with Paul freely proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God in Rome (Act 19:21-41).

b Paul’s progress towards Jerusalem is diverted because of further threats and he meets with disciples for seven days at Troas (Act 20:1-6).

c The final voyage commences and a great sign is given of God’s presence with Paul. Eutychus is raised from the dead (Act 20:7-12).

d Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus who meet him at Miletus and he gives warning of the dangers of spiritual catastrophe ahead and turns them to the word of His grace. If they obey Him all will be saved (Act 20:13-38).

e A series of maritime stages, and of prophecy (Act 19:4; Act 19:11), which reveals that God is with Paul (Act 21:1-16).

f Paul proves his true dedication in Jerusalem and his conformity with the Law and does nothing that is worthy of death but the doors of the Temple are closed against him (Act 21:17-30).

g Paul is arrested and gives his testimony of his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 21:31 to Act 22:29).

h Paul appears before the Sanhedrin and points to the hope of the resurrection (Act 22:30 to Act 23:9).

i He is rescued by the chief captain and is informed by the Lord that as he has testified in Jerusalem so he will testify in Rome (Act 23:11).

j The Jews plan an ambush, which is thwarted by Paul’s nephew (Act 23:12-25).

k Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea (Act 23:26-35).

l Paul makes his defence before Felix stressing the hope of the resurrection (Act 24:1-22).

k Paul is kept at Felix’ pleasure for two years (with opportunities in Caesarea) (Act 24:23-27).

j The Jews plan to ambush Paul again, an attempt which is thwarted by Festus (Act 25:1-5).

i Paul appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar. To Rome he will go (Act 25:6-12).

h Paul is brought before Agrippa and gives his testimony stressing his hope in the resurrection (Act 25:23 to Act 26:8).

g Paul gives his testimony concerning his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 26:9-23).

f Paul is declared to have done nothing worthy of death and thus to have conformed to the Law, but King Herod Agrippa II closes his heart against his message (Act 26:28-32).

e A series of maritime stages and of prophecy (Act 19:10; Act 19:21-26) which confirms that God is with Paul (27.l-26).

d Paul speaks to those at sea, warning of the dangers of physical catastrophe ahead unless they obey God’s words. If they obey Him all will be delivered (Act 27:27-44).

c Paul is delivered from death through snakebite and Publius’ father and others are healed, which are the signs of God’s presence with him, and the voyage comes to an end after these great signs have been given (Act 28:1-13).

b Paul meets with disciples for seven days at Puteoli and then at the Appii Forum (Act 28:14-15).

a Paul commences his ministry in Rome where, living in quietness, he has clear course to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God (Act 28:16-31).

Thus in ‘a’ the section commences at the very centre of idolatry which symbolises with its three temples (depicted in terms of the Temple of Artemis) the political and religious power of Rome, the kingly rule of Rome, which is being undermined by the Good News which has ‘almost spread throughout all Asia’ involving ‘much people’. It begins with uproar and an attempt to prevent the spread of the Good News and reveals the ultimate emptiness of that religion. All they can do is shout slogans including the name of Artemis, but though they shout it long and loud that name has no power and results in a rebuke from their ruler. In the parallel the section ends with quiet effectiveness and the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God being given free rein. This is in reverse to section 1 which commenced with the call to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (Act 1:3) and ended with the collapse of the kingly rule of Israel through pride and idolatry (Act 12:20-23).

In ‘b’ Paul meets with God’s people for ‘seven days, the divinely perfect period, at the commencement of his journey, and then in the parallel he again meets with the people of God for ‘seven days’ at the end of his journey. Wherever he goes, there are the people of God.

In ‘c’ God reveals that His presence is with Paul by the raising of the dead, and in the parallel His presence by protection from the Snake and the healing of Publius.

In ‘d’ we have a significant parallel between Paul’s warning of the need for the church at Ephesus to avoid spiritual catastrophe through ‘the word of His grace’ and in the parallel ‘d’ the experience of being saved from a great storm through His gracious word, but only if they are obedient to it, which results in deliverance for all.

In ‘e’ and its parallel we have Paul’s voyages, each accompanied by prophecy indicating God’s continuing concern for Paul.

In ‘f’ Paul proves his dedication and that he is free from all charges that he is not faithful to the Law of Moses, and in the parallel Agrippa II confirms him to be free of all guilt.

In ‘g’ Paul give his testimony concerning receiving his commission from the risen Jesus, and in the parallel this testimony is repeated and the commission expanded.

In ‘h’ Paul proclaims the hope of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin, and in the parallel he proclaims the hope of the resurrection before Felix, Agrippa and the gathered Gentiles.

In ‘i’ the Lord tells him that he will testify at Rome, while in the parallel the procurator Festus declares that he will testify at Rome. God’s will is carried out by the Roman power.

In ‘ j’ a determined plan by the Jews to ambush Paul and kill him is thwarted, and in the parallel a further ambush two years later is thwarted. God is continually watching over Paul.

In ‘k’ Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, and in the parallel spends two years there with access given to the ‘his friends’ so that he can freely minister.

In ‘l’ we have the central point around which all revolves. Paul declares to Felix and the elders of Jerusalem the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust in accordance with the Scriptures.

It will be noted that the central part of this chiasmus is built around the hope of the resurrection which is mentioned three times, first in ‘h’, then centrally in ‘l’ and then again in ‘h’, and these are sandwiched between two descriptions of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Jesus (in ‘g’ and in the parallel ‘g’). The defeat of idolatry and the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God have as their central cause the hope of the resurrection and the revelation of the risen Jesus.

We must now look at the section in more detail.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul Is Arrested And Speaks To The Crowd Giving His Own Testimony. They Reply ‘Away With Him’ (21:31-22:29).

At this point begins the remarkable account of Paul’s imprisonment, trials and treatment at the hands of men in Jerusalem and Caesarea (from Act 21:31 to Act 26:32). It could well have been said of him also, ‘you will be delivered into the hands of men’ (Luk 9:44; Luk 24:7). What follows can only really be understood by those who understood the situation in Palestine. Hyrcanus and Antipater had a century before supported Caesar when he was having a difficult time in possessing his empire and as a result the Jews were given special privileges, being looked on as allies rather than just as a conquered people. And the peculiarities of their religion were thus assured to them. Nevertheless the Jews saw themselves as God’s chosen people and could never be happy under Gentile control. Matters became worse when the failures of their rulers resulted in Judaea coming under direct Roman rule through procurators, although their ruling body the Sanhedrin continued to have authority in religious affairs, and in practise considerable control in political affairs as well because the people were more responsive to them. The wise procurator kept on good terms with the Sanhedrin if at all possible (it was easier said than done). There was an uneasy peace between the procurators and the Sanhedrin, and a love-hate relationship, and the procurators had to recognise that while they could enforce their decisions through the auxiliary legions quartered in Palestine, the people looked more to the Sanhedrin because they were Jewish and were more responsive to them. It was necessary, if peace was to be maintained and harmony achieved, that the Sanhedrin was kept in harness. On the other hand the procurators in the end were in total control, and had the armed forces which ensured it, as the Sanhedrin bitterly recognised. It was they who were responsible to Caesar for the peace of the realm.

The Sanhedrin was composed of the chief priests and influential Sadducees, leading lay elders of the aristocracy and leading Pharisees. The chief priests and Sadducees controlled the Temple and its revenues, but the Pharisees had the hearts of the people, and wielded their power through the synagogues, local places of worship where Jews congregated on the Sabbath and recited the Shema and the eighteen benedictions, together with formal prayer, listened to the reading of the Scriptures, and heard them expounded by their teachers, often Pharisees. The Pharisees did not control the synagogues, for they were controlled by appointed lay elders, but their influence through them was great because of the respect in which they were held. The Sadducees, to whom a large number of the priests belonged, including especially the Chief Priests who controlled Temple affairs, did not believe in the resurrection from the dead, nor in angels. They were very politically minded and believed in freewill and the non-interference of God in human affairs (which was very convenient) and accepted only the Law of Moses as Scripture, of which they emphasised the ritual aspect. The Pharisees accepted ‘the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms’ as Scripture, believed wholeheartedly in the resurrection from the dead, and in angels and predestination, sought by their lives to attain to eternal life, held to complicated rituals of cleansing and the need to observe the Law of Moses according to their tenets and were looked up to by the people.

Under the Romans the Sanhedrin had responsibility for religious affairs and could try cases related thereto, but they did not have the ability to pass the death sentence except probably in cases of extreme blasphemy. Civil justice was mainly in the hands of the procurator. And he was responsible to Rome and was expected to maintain Roman standards of law. But there were good and bad procurators who applied the rules in different ways, and they had considerable leeway. However, they always had to keep one eye open to the fact that complaint could be made about them to Caesar where they went too far.

By the time of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem described here Judaea was a hotbed of violence and insurrection, religious disquiet and extreme dissatisfaction, and continual ferment, which was kept in control by harsh measures on the part of the procurators. Outbursts of religious passion could burst forth at any moment. Judaea (and Galilee) was like a volcano waiting to explode.

The situation just described explains why the procurators, while not willing to give the Sanhedrin its way in respect of Paul without due evidence, were nevertheless hesitant totally to reject their concerns. It was simpler to keep them from getting too upset by keeping Paul in custody and giving the impression that something was being done. But they dared not release him because of the offence that it would cause to the Sanhedrin (and they probably believed, to the people as well). The concerns of one man, while they had to be taken into account, had to be subordinated to political expediency. Thus he was like a hot potato. He must not be dropped, but was painful to hold onto. Rome prided itself on its system of justice, but affairs of state also had to be considered. Add to this Felix’ greed and Festus’ naivete and we understand the background to Paul’s treatment. It saved him from death, and it nearly killed him. But, of course, behind all was God, as Luke continually wants us to understand. And God had His way in the end.

It is easy to get the impression that for Paul these were wasted years. But if we do this is to misunderstand the situation. It is very probable that in the two years in which Paul was held in custody the church in Caesarea had constant access to him, that he fed them and helped them to grow, that he was constantly visited by his companions, prayed with them and taught them, and that he was able to send them to do what he was unable to do. Furthermore during these two years he came before the Sanhedrin, before gatherings of leading Jews, before procurators and kings, and before a gathering of all the notabilities in Caesarea, and had ample opportunity to bring home to them all his essential message. And his behaviour under his trials and sufferings must have given a huge boost, both to the church in Palestine, and to the church around the world. He was kept very busy and yet given a necessary rest at the same time.

But above all he was able to give a testimony to the resurrection which has blessed all ages. Who can forget his vivid descriptions of how he met the risen and glorious Lord Whose commission to him, and to us all, was the foundation of his whole life, and his continual and unfailing testimony to the resurrection when he himself did not know what a day would ring forth.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28

2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35

3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22

4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38

5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32

6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29

A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.

2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”

Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.

Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”

In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.

Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”

Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”

Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Witness of Paul’s Arrest, Imprisonment, and Trials (A.D. 58-62) The final major division of the book of Acts (Act 21:1 to Act 28:31) serves as Luke’s testimony of the arrest and trials of Paul the apostle, his trip by sea to Rome, and preparation for a hearing before the Roman emperor, the highest court in the Roman Empire. G. H. C. MacGregor notes that this large portion of material devoted to Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and journey to Rome fills about one fourth of the book of Acts. He suggests several reasons. (1) Luke was an Eyewitness of these Events Luke was an eye witness of these dramatic events of Paul’s arrest, trials and journey to Rome. The nature of such events must have created a strong impact upon his life. (2) The Gospels are Structured with a Similar Disproportion of Jesus’ Arrest, Passion and Resurrection – By comparing this large portion of material to a similar structure in the Gospels, MacGregor suggests that Luke draws a parallel plot with the story of Paul. (3) Luke is Writing an Apology for Paul Many scholars believe Luke is writing an apology in defense of Paul. MacGregor bases this view upon the five speeches of Paul’s defense that are recorded in this section of Acts: Paul’s speech to the Jewish mob (Act 22:3-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix, the Roman governor (Act 24:10-21), to Festus, the Roman governor (Act 25:8-11), and to King Herod (Act 26:2-23). A number of scholars support the proposition that the impetus behind these events was an effort to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, which leads to the suggestion that Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke as a legal brief in anticipation of Paul’s trial before the Roman court. MacGregor argues that this motif is woven throughout Paul’s missionary journeys when Luke carefully records his encounters with Roman authorities in various cities. He notes that Luke records statements by Lysias, Festus, and Felix regarding the failure by the Jews to prove Paul’s guilt under Roman Law. He adds that Luke ends the book by portraying Paul as a peaceful man entertaining guests while imprisoned in Rome, in stark contrast to the zealous violence of the Jews that Rome was accustomed to encountering. [258] We may add that Luke’s opening to his Gospel and Acts serve as a petition to Theophilus.

[258] G. H. C. MacGregor and Theodore P. Ferris, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1954), 284-285.

The accounts of Paul’s five trials and apologetic speeches recorded in Act 21:1 to Act 26:32 show that Paul had exhausted the judicial systems in Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, before departing for Rome. In each of these trials, Luke proves Paul’s innocence. The only court left was an appeal to the highest court in Rome. These five trials serve as a testimony that Paul had a legal right to appeal unto Caesar, and that he was beyond doubt innocent of his allegations by the Jews.

One more important aspect of this passage is that divine oracles are embedded within the narrative material of Act 21:1 to Act 28:31. For example, Paul received divine oracles from the seven daughters of Philip the evangelist and the prophet Agabus (Act 21:8); he testifies of his divine vision on the road to Damascus and of the prophecy of Ananias (Act 22:6-16); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation while in prison at Caesarea (Act 23:11); Paul testifies again of his divine vision on the road to Damascus (Act 26:12-19); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation at sea (Act 27:20-26).

Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:1 to Act 28:31:

1. Prophecies of Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem Act 21:1-14

2. Paul’s Arrest and First Speech to Jewish Mob Act 21:15 to Act 22:29

3. Paul’s Second Speech Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:35

4. Paul’s Third Speech Before Felix the Governor Act 24:1-27

5. Paul’s Fourth Speech Before Festus the Governor Act 25:1-12

6. Paul’s Fifth Speech Before King Agrippa Act 25:13 to Act 26:32

7. The Witness of Paul’s Trip to Rome Act 27:1 to Act 28:29

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The First Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before the Jewish Mob and Roman Chief Captain (A.D. 58) Act 21:15 to Act 22:29 records the testimony of Paul before the Jewish mob at the Temple and before the Roman’s chief captain. This is the first speech that Luke records of Paul’s defense of the Christian faith. Paul now stands before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he will stand before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he will stand before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he will stand before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12), and he will stand before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:15 to Act 22:29:

1. Paul Meets with James and the Elders at Jerusalem Act 21:15-26

2. Paul’s Arrest in the Temple Act 21:27-36

3. Paul’s Testimony to the Mob Act 21:37 to Act 22:22

4. Paul and the Roman Chief Captain Act 22:23-29

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Paul’s Speech to the Jews. Act 21:40 ; Act 22:1-21

Concerning Paul’s early life and persecution of the Church:

v. 40. And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

v. 1. Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you.

v. 2. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence; and he saith,)

v. 3. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the Law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

v. 4, And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women,

v. 5. as also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders, from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem for to be punished.

The commander of the garrison granted the request of Paul to speak to the people all the more readily, since he hoped to learn from the speech the real charges laid against him. The soldiers therefore having set Paul down and loosened at least one of his chains, he stood at the head of the stairway and beckoned to the people with his characteristic gesture to indicate that he was about to address them. “What nobler spectacle than that of Paul at this moment There he stands bound with two chains, ready to make his defense to the people. The Roman commander sits by to enforce order by his presence. An enraged populace looks up to him from below. Yet in the midst of so many dangers, how self-possessed is he, how tranquil!” (Chrysostomus) When then there was much silence, when comparative quiet had been restored, the very fact that the man whom they had just made ready to murder was seeking to impart something to them, making some impression upon them, Paul spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, that is, in the Aramaic language as it was then spoken generally by the Jews. He addressed them as brethren and fathers. Though they had almost succeeded in taking his life and had by no means relinquished the idea, yet Paul, neither in his tone nor in his words, showed any anger or resentment. With death staring him in the face, his thought was only for the spiritual welfare of his brethren according to the flesh, whether by any means he would still be able to save some of them. He asks them to hear from his lips the defense which he proposes to make to them now. And the fact that he employed the Aramaic dialect proved a further factor in quieting the multitude; they observed all the greater silence. Many members of the mob, hearing only half the charge and not understanding it correctly, had undoubtedly supposed that the man before them was himself a Gentile and not versed in either the Jewish language or the Jewish customs. And now Paul, in the honest attempt to gain his audience for at least an attentive listening to his apology, sets forth before them a few facts from his life. He was a Jewish man, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but educated in this very city of Jerusalem, and at the feet of Gamaliel, the celebrated teacher, at that, instructed according to the full strictness of the paternal Law. The Pharisees, to whom Gamalie belonged, prided themselves upon the exactness of their interpretation of the Law and upon the literalness which they demanded in its observation. All this Paul had learned, in it he had been drilled. And therefore he had been ardent, zealous of God and for His honor, just as his hearers had proved themselves to be on that very day, Rom 10:2. Paul’s words contain no accusation of malicious obstinacy, but are merely the statement of a fact which may well be made of use to them. Of his own zeal he says that he had persecuted this way, the persons that accepted the way of salvation through faith in the redemption of Jesus, unto death, this being his aim and interest in the matter. And in order to realize this purpose, he had bound and delivered into prison both men and women. And for the truth of this assertion the high priest of that year himself could bear witness and the entire Syncdrion, for it was from them that he had received letters, credentials, to the brethren, whereupon he had traveled to Damascus, his object being to bind and to bring to Jerusalem also the disciples of that city, to lead them back in fetters, in order that adequate punishment might be meted out to them. Paul makes an open confession, withholding nothing from his hearers, and offering no excuse for his action. His narrative is a description of the state of the unconverted mind. In his unregenerate condition a person will either serve the fleshly lusts and trample upon the Law of God, or he will be zealous for an outward righteousness of the Law and despise the power and the beauty of the Gospel.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Act 22:1

Brethren for men, brethren, A.V. (Act 7:2, note); the for my, A.V.; now make for make now, A.V. The defense; This is the technical word in classical Greek for a defense in answer to an accusation. Thus e.g. the oration of Gorgias entitled, , begins, . And Demosthenes opposes to accuse, to , to make one’s defense. And an is to prove that , “the things of which the person is accused,” were never done. But it is probably from St. Paul’s use of the word here that it became common to call the defenses of the Christian religion by the term . Thus we have the ‘Apologies’ of Justin Martyr, of Tertullian, of Minutius Felix, among the ancients; me ‘Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae,’ by Bishop Jewel, and many others.

Act 22:2

Unto them in the Hebrew language for in the Hebrew tongue to them, A.V.; were the more quiet for kept the more silence, A.V. When they heard, etc. This trait is wonderfully true to nature, and exhibits also St. Paul’s admirable tact and self-possession. It was strikingly in harmony with his addressing them as “brethren” that he should speak to them in their own mother tongue. There is a living reality in such touches which seems at once to refute Renan’s suspicion that St. Luke invented this and other of St. Paul’s speeches in the later chapters of the Acts. The full report of these later speeches is abundantly accounted for by the fact that through this time St. Luke was with St. Paul, and heard the speeches.

Act 22:3

A Jew for verily a man which am a Jew, A.V. and T.R.; of Cilicia for a city in Cilicia, A.V.; but for yet, A.V.; instructed for and taught, A.V.; strict for perfect, A.V.; our for the, A.V.; being for and was, A.V.; for for towards, A.V.; even as for as, A.V. Born in Tarsus, etc. (see Act 21:39). St. Paul was evidently proud of his native city, “the famous capital of a Roman province,” watered by the “swift stream of the Cydnus,” and looked down upon by the snowy summits of Mount Taurus; “a center of busy commercial enterprise and political power;” “a free city, libera et immunis“ (Farrar, ‘Life of St. Paul,’ vol. 1. Act 2:1-47.). St. Paul’s express assertion that he was “born at Tarsus” directly refutes the tradition handed down by St. Jerome that he was horn at Giscala, and carried thence to Tarsus by his parents when Giscala was taken by the Romans (Farrar, ibid.). Brought up; , a classical word, only found in the New Testament in the Acts (Act 7:20, Act 7:21, and here). It is found also in Wis. 7:4. It implies early education. At the feet of. The scholar sits or stands humbly beneath the raised seat of the teacher (comp. Luk 10:39). The stop is rightly placed after . Some, however, put the stop after , and connect with . Gamaliel (see Act 4:1-37, Act 5:3, note). Instructed according to the strict manner of the Law of our fathers; comp. Gal 1:14, “I profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers,” where for we read ,. Under the Paul probably included the traditions, as well as the written Law, which the Pharisees so rigidly observed (comp. Act 26:5,where the corresponds with the ) The strict manner; , found only here in the New Testament; but a word of repeated use in this sense in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, and also, with the adjective and the adverb , much used by medical writers. and are used by St. Luke only (Act 18:26; Act 23:1-35. 15, 20; Act 24:22; Act 26:5), and six times to three in the rest of the New Testament. Zealous for God ( ); see Act 21:20, note.

Act 22:4

I persecuted (see 1Co 15:9; 1Ti 1:13; and Act 26:11). This Way (see Act 9:2; Act 18:25; Act 19:9, Act 19:23). Unto the death (comp. Act 9:1). Binding, etc. (comp. Act 8:3; Act 9:2).

Act 22:5

Journeyed for went, A.V.; them also for them, A.V.; unto Jerusalem in beads for bound unto Jerusalem, A.V. The high priest. Ananias, the present high priest, who may have been one of St. Paul’s hearers included among the “fathers,” and who had probably been already a member of the Sanhedrim at the time of St. Paul’s conversion (see Act 23:1-35. 2; Act 24:1). Others, however, understand “the high priest” to mean him who was high priest at the time of St. Paul’s journey to Damascus, viz. Theophilus, who was still alive. The brethren. The Jews at Damascus. St, Paul speaks to his hearers emphatically as a Jew. To be punished ( ); whether by rods or by death. The word occurs in the New Testament only here and Act 26:11, but is not infrequent in the LXX. and in classical writers; is common in medical language in the sense of “to treat medically,” to “correct” by medical treatment.

Act 22:6

Drew nigh for was come nigh, A.V. The phraseology of the following narrative is nearly identical with that of Act 9:3-6 (where see notes).

Act 22:9

Beheld for saw, A.V. Beheld indeed the light [and were afraid, A.V.]. This corresponds with the statement in Act 9:7, that the men who journeyed with Saul “stood speechless.” They were dazzled and amazed at the sudden brightness. But they heard not the voice. This at first sight seems inconsistent with the statement in Act 9:7, “hearing the voice.” But the apparent inconsistency disappears when we observe that here St. Paul wished to impress upon his hearers that, though his companions had seen the light, they had not heard the words which were addressed to him by the Lord Jesus (see Act 9:14); whereas St. Luke, in the narrative in Act 9:1-43., wished rather to insist upon the fact that though the men had seen the light and heard the sound of the voice, they had not seen Jesus. To see and hear the risen Christ was a privilege given to St. Paul alone.

Act 22:11

When I could not see (comp. Act 9:8, and note). Them that were with me ( ). occurs only here and Luk 9:18, hut is used several times by the LXX. It is very common in medical waters for the accompanying symptoms of a disease.

Act 22:12

Well reported of by for having a good report of, A.V.; that for which, A.V. Well reported of (); see Act 6:3, note.

Act 22:13

Standing by me for stood, and, A.V.; in that very for the same, A.V.; on for upon, A.V.

Act 22:14

Appointed for chosen, A.V.; to know for that thou shouldest know, A.V.; to see the Righteous One for see that Just One, A.V.; to hear a voice from for shouldest hear the voice of, A.V. Hath appointed thee; , a word found in the New Testament only here and in Act 26:16, and in Act 3:20 (R.T.). In classical Greek it means mostly “to get anything ready beforehand;” to cause anything to be , ready to hand. And in the LXX. it means “to choose,” or “appoint,“ as Jos 3:12; Exo 4:13, where it is not a translation of , but a paraphrase of the sentence, “Appoint one by whom thou wilt send.” Here it may be rendered indifferently either “choose” or “appoint.” The Righteous One. The designation of Messiah in such passages as Isa 53:11; Psa 72:2, etc. (see in the New Testament Luk 23:47; 1Jn 2:1; Rev 19:11, etc.). A voice from his mouth is a very awkward though literal rendering. The A.V. expresses the sense much better.

Act 22:15

A witness for him for his witness, A.V. A witness. An essential attribute of an apostle (see Act 1:8, Act 1:22, notes). Seen and heard.

Act 22:16

His Name for the Name of the Lord, A.V. and T.R. Wash away thy sins; , only here and in 1Co 6:11, where it is found in exactly the same sense of “washing away sins” (see 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10) in holy baptism. Hence the , “the washing of regeneration” (Tit 3:5; comp. Eph 5:26; and see Act 2:38, note). Calling on his Name (); see Act 2:21; Act 7:59, note; Act 9:14, Act 9:21; Rom 10:12, Rom 10:13, Rom 10:14; 1Co 1:2; 2Ti 2:22 : 1Pe 1:17, all texts distinctly justifying prayer to the Lord Jesus.

Act 22:17

Had returned for was come again, A.V.; and for even, A.V.; fell into for was in, A.V. Into a trance ( ); see Act 10:10, note.

Act 22:18

Because for for, A.V.; of thee testimony for thy testimony, A.V. and T.R. Get thee quickly, etc. The narrative in Act 9:28-30 does not mention the vision, but gives the murderous opposition of the Hellenist Jews as the reason of Saul’s departure from Jerusalem to Tarsus. Possibly, if it had not been for the Divine warning, the apostle would have braved the danger and lost his life.

Act 22:19

They themselves for they, A.V. In every synagogue. It appears from Mat 10:18 that offenders were beaten in the synagogue, and doubtless by command of the synagogue authorities. A delation to any synagogue that any member of it was a blasphemer (i.e. a Christian) would lead to such a punishment. But probably the meaning here rather is that he went or sent to every synagogue to find out who there was among them that believed in Jesus, and then had them punished at Jerusalem (Act 9:2).

Act 22:20

Stephen thy witness for thy martyr Stephen, A.V.; consenting for consenting unto his death, A.V. and T.R.; keeping the garments for kept the raiment, A.V. Consenting; (above, Act 8:1; Luk 11:48; Rom 1:32; 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:13). It is also found in I Mace. 1:60; 2 Macc. 11:34, 35. Of them that slew him ( ). , in the sense of “to kill,” is a favorite word of St. Luke’s (Luk 22:2; Luk 23:1-56. 32; Act 2:23; Act 5:33, Act 5:36; Act 7:28; Act 9:23, Act 9:24, Act 9:29; Act 10:39; Act 12:2; Act 13:28; Act 16:27; Act 22:20; Act 23:1-35. 15, 21, 27; Act 25:3; Act 26:10); but elsewhere in the New Testament only Mat 2:16 and 2Th 2:8, R.T. It is frequent in the LXX. and also in medical writers in the sense of “taking away” or “removing.“

Act 22:21

Send thee forth for send thee, A.V. The natural understanding of the preceding dialogue is that Saul, when bid depart quickly out of Jerusalem because the Jews would not receive his testimony, was unwilling to obey, and pleaded that surely the Jews must listen to him and be convinced, since they were well aware how hot and zealous a partisan of the Jews he had been, and must see that nothing but a great miracle could have converted him. It was the argument of a young and impetuous man, with little experience of the headstrong obstinacy of bigoted men. The Lord cut him short with a peremptory “Depart!” but with the gracious addition, “I will send thee unto the Gentiles”a commission which is more fully given in Act 26:17, Act 26:18, and which was carried out in his whole life.

Act 22:22

They for then, A.V.; voice for voices, A.V. Unto this word. They could not bear the idea of the Gentiles being admitted into the kingdom of God. It was a blow to their pride of exclusiveness. The leveling-up of the Gentiles seemed to be as intolerable as the leveling-down of themselves, as spoken of e.g. Isa 1:10; Eze 16:45, etc.

Act 22:23

Threw off their garments for east off their clothes, A.V.; east for threw, A.V. Threw off their garments. Either “wild signs of fury, gestures by which they gave to understand that they would gladly accomplish the cry, ‘Away with him from the earth!'” (Lunge), tokens of applause and consent at the sentiment of the cry,“ Lucian, ‘ De Salt,’); or (so Meyer) signifying that they were ready to stone the culprit (see Act 22:20).

Act 22:24

Bidding for and bade, A.V.; for what cause for wherefore, A.V.; so shouted for cried so, A.V. The chief captain (see Act 21:31, note). The castle (see Act 21:34, note). Examined; , only here and in Act 22:29. In Jdg 6:29 (Codex Alexandrinus) and in the Hist. of Susanna 14 the verb has the simple sense of “inquiring.” The classical word for “examining” and especially by torture, is . By scourging (). The was in Latin the flagellum, the m st severe implement of flogging, though even with the lighter virga, the rod of the lictor, slaves and others were beaten to death (usque ad necem). It was not lawful to beat a Roman citizen even with the virga (); Act 16:22, Act 16:35, Act 16:37, notes. The , or scourge, was that with which our Lord was scourged at the bidding of Pilate. Doubtless Lysias had not understood Paul’s Hebrew speech, and so had not known what it was which provoked so fierce an uproar among the people.

Act 22:25

When they had tied him up with the thongs for as they bound him with thongs, A.V. When they had tied him up, etc. This does not seem to be a right rendering. can only mean “to stretch out before,” or “expose to the action,” of anything, when taken in a literal sense; , again, more naturally means the “thong” or lash of a whip or scourge than a thong to bind a man with; indeed, it is thought to be etymologically connected with , Meyer, therefore, rightly understands the passage to mean when they had stretched him on the stake ready to receive the scourging. Is it lawful, etc.? Paul now pleads his privileges as a Roman citizen, just in time to stop the outrage, remembering, no doubt, the terror inspired in the Philippian magistrates when they found they had beaten with rods an uncondemned Roman citizen (see Act 16:38). Uncondemned (); Act 16:37. Only found in these two passages in the New Testament, and nowhere else.

Act 22:26

And when for when, A.V.; it for that, A.V.; to for and told, A.V.; and told him, saying for saying, A.V.; What art thou about to do? for Take heed what thou doest, A.V.

Act 22:27

And for then, A.V; and he said for he said, A.V.

Act 22:28

Citizenship for freedom, A.V; am a Roman for was free, A.V. A great sum ( ). The word is only found here in the New Testament in the sense of a “sum of money,” but is so used in classical writers. Citizenship; , for “freedom of the city,” in Xenophon, AElian, Polybius, Dion Cassius, etc., and 3 Macc. 3:21. Dion Cassius (9 17) relates that Messaliua, the wife of the Emperor Claudius, used to sell the freedom of the city, and that at first she sold it ( ) for a very high price, but that afterwards it became very cheap. In all probability Lysias had so purchased it, and in consequence took the name of Claudius. I am a Roman born. It is not known how St. Paul’s family acquired the Roman citizenship.

Act 22:29

They then which were about to examine him straightway departed from him for then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him, A.V.; when for after, A.V. Had bound him ( ), as related in Act 21:33. : “Facinus est vinciri civem Remanum,” Cicero, in ‘Verrem,’ 5.66 (quoted by Meyer).

Act 22:30

But on for on, A.V.; desiring to know for because he would have known, A.V.; loosed him for loosed him from his bands, A.V. and T.R.; the council for their council, A.V. and T.R.; to come together for to appear, A.V. and T.R. Brought Paul down; from the castle to the council-room below, either to the hall Gazith or to some other place of meeting. Lysias probably still kept Paul a prisoner through the night, on account of the excited state of the people.

HOMILETICS

Act 22:1-30

The apology.

It was a very remarkable promise which our Lord made to his apostles, when, forewarning them that they should be delivered up to councils, and brought before kings and rulers for his sake, he added, “But when they so deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost” (Mar 13:9-11). It is impossible not to see a fulfillment of this promise in St. Paul’s apology delivered from the castle stairs at Jerusalem to an infuriated and bloodthirsty mob. A Jewish riot had something terrific in it, something dreaded even by the iron-minded Romans. The features all contorted with passion, the large eyes starting out of their sockets, the savage grinding of the teeth, the fierce cries, the wild throwing of handfuls of dust into the air, the tossing and waving of their garments with an unbridled violence, gave a demoniac aspect to such rioters. Paul had just come out of the thick of such a mob. He had barely escaped with his life, but not without many blows. He had heard his name given to execration, held up to detestation as the author of blasphemies and sacrilege, and as the enemy of his race. And now he was a prisoner in the hands of the heathen masters of his unhappy country. His hands were loaded with chains, and he knew not what dangers were before him. And yet, when he had scarce recovered breath after the struggle for life, we find him with the chains on his wrists, but with unruffled spirit, and admirable composure and self-possession, delivering to his enemies and would-be murderers a speech as gentle, as firm, as calm, as collected, and as logical, as if he had composed and prepared it at leisure in the stillness of his own study, and was addressing it to a congregation of friends and admirers. Must it not have been given to him in that hour what to speak, and how to say it? The great force of this defense lay in its simple statement of facts. The apostle’s conduct at each successive stage had flowed naturally and almost inevitably from the circumstances which surrounded him. He had nothing to conceal. Indeed, the circumstances of his early life were well known to his hearers. If his statement was true, how could he have acted differently? He appealed to his fellow-countrymen, his fathers and brothers of the Jewish people, to hear with impartiality the apology which he made. Had he stopped here, maybe his defense would have been accepted. His Hebrew speech, his thoroughly Jewish attitude, his high-minded earnestness, his splendid courage, seem to have wrought to some extent upon his volatile and mobile hearers. But he could not stop there. He had a further message to deliver, and it must be delivered at Jerusalem, the mother Church, not only of the circumcision, but of the whole Gentile world. That message was that Christ was to be preached to the Gentiles, and that Jews and Gentiles were to be henceforth one in Christ. And that message he delivered with chains on his arms, from the midst of a Roman cohort, to the angry crowd beneath him, having obviously one single purposeto speak the truth, and to do his duty both to God and man. One other remark is called for by this apology. The nature of the case, a defense under false accusation, made it absolutely necessary that the defendant should speak of himself. But in the course of the twenty verses in which he details the several passages in the history of his life which bore upon the accusation, it is impossible to detect one particle of vainglory or of egotism. There are no boastings, nor are there any expressions of an affected humility. There is absolute simplicity. He speaks of himself because he must. And in the same spirit of genuine humility, when it was not necessary, he did not speak of himself. In the remarkable absence of details in all those parts of the Acts of the Apostles where St. Luke does not write as an eyewitness, we have strong evidence that St. Paul did not make his own doings the subject of his conversation with his familiar friends. Had he done so, St. Luke’s narrative might have been richer and fuller, but St. Paul greatness would have been diminished, as that of all vain men is, by the desire to appear great. As it is, the apology enables us to enumerate the great apostle’s virtues as combining in an extraordinary degree, courage, gentleness, calmness, vigor, humility, high-mindedness, determination, honesty, truth, patriotism, self-forgetfulness, wisdom, eloquence, and a passionate zeal for the glory of Christ and for the salvation of men. (For an illustration of some of these features in the apostle’s character, see also 2Co 11:1-33.; 12.; Gal 2:5, Gal 2:11; Eph 3:7, Eph 3:8; 1Ti 1:12,1Ti 1:13, 1Ti 1:16; and throughout the Acts of the Apostles.)

HOMILIES BY W. CLarkson

Act 22:1-22

Argument and prejudice.

We have here

I. AN ADMIRABLE ARGUMENT. Paul, at the inspiration of the moment, made a powerful defense of his position. He showed:

1. That no one could enter into their feelings more perfectly than himself. Was he not a Jew by birth (Act 22:3)? Had he not received a thoroughly Jewish education, at the feet of a Jewish master (Act 22:3)? Had he not been absolutely possessed by a devotedness to the Law, and a corresponding hatred of the new “Way” (Act 22:4)? Had they not the evidence in their own hands of the bitter and unrelenting persecution of which he had been the eager and active agent (Act 22:5)? If, then, he was found advocating this hated “Way,” it was not because he did not understand Jewish sympathies, nor because he had always been one of its votaries; quite the contrary.

2. That no one could possibly have weightier reasons for changing his mind than he had. First came a heavenly vision, arresting him in his path of persecution, and forbidding him to continue (Act 22:6-11). Then came a powerful confirmation, in a miracle of healing of which he himself was the subject and of which a most honorable and estimable Jew was the instrument (Act 22:12, Act 22:13); and a further confirmation in the message with which he was charged (Act 22:14-16). Then came a third influence of a powerful character in the shape of another manifestation, and a command, against which he vainly strove, to go out and work among the Gentiles (Act 22:18-21).

II. A SENSELESS AND SUICIDAL EXASPERATION. (Act 22:22, Act 22:23.) Such was the violent antipathy in the minds of his audience to any fellowship with the Gentile world that all Paul’s arguments went for nothing. This was such an opportunity as was little likely to recur, of having the facts of the case placed plainly and forcibly before their minds; it was a day of grace to them. But so utterly prejudiced were they that one word filled them with a senseless exasperation which stole from them the golden chance they had of learning the truth, and which riveted the chains of error and exclusiveness they wore upon their souls.

This defense of the apostle and this exasperation of his audience may suggest to us:

1. The fullness of the Divine argument. God “reasons with” us. He does so

(1) in proof of his own presence and providence in the world;

(2) in proof of the heavenly origin of the gospel of his grace; and

(3) in furtherance of our personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of our soul. The Divine arguments and inducements are very strong, and they are very varied. They include the miraculous and the ordinary; they appeal to the human consciousness, to history, and to daily observation; they are based on well-attested facts; they appeal to our hopes and to our fears, to our sense of what is due to our Creator and of what we owe to ourselves, of obligation and of wisdom. They are mighty, urgent, convincing, one would saybut for sad facts which argue to the contraryoverwhelming.

2. The foolish and fatal anger which it sometimes excites. There are those who, when God speaks to them in nature, providence, or privilege, instead of lending their ear to his word and bowing their spirit to his will, are only angered and exasperated; they go still further away from him in increased alienation, in still more determined rebelliousness of soul. But so doing

(1) they aggravate their guilt; and

(2) they cut down the bridge by which they might cross to the heavenly kingdom.C.

Act 22:14, Act 22:15

“The will of God in Christ Jesus concerning us.”

I. DIVINE ELECTION. “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee” (Act 22:14). It will always be a difficulty to know what to think of the electing grace of God. But we are on safe ground when we say:

1. That God desires the well-being of every member of his human family. We may surely argue that it must be so; we may boldly affirm that it is so. Is it not written that God is one “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1Ti 2:4; see Eze 18:23; Eze 33:11; 2Pe 3:9).

2. That he bestows special favors and privileges on some men; to some as not to others he gives intellectual faculty, material resources, educational advantages, domestic influences, providential guidance, knowledge of Christian truth in its purity and integrity, etc. These he “elects,” or “chooses;” on them he confers distinguishing goodness.

II. A VISION OF THE RIGHTEOUS SAVIOR. “That thou shouldest see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth” (Act 22:14). To Saul there was vouchsafed a very special and peculiar manifestation of the risen Lord. In such wise as we do not, he saw the Just One himself and heard his voice. But Christ does present himself now to the sons of men, and he manifests himself as the Just One, as the Lord of righteousness. By a spiritual act we recognize Jesus Christ as:

1. That Being who is in himself the Holy and Righteous One, in whom is no trace of sin.

2. That Divine One who summons us to a new life of holiness and sacred service.

3. That Just One who, by his atoning death, has made the way open to our immediate justification, who has made it possible for us to attain to “the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Php 3:9). In the presence of him, the Just One, we are filled with shame; but by faith in his finished work we have acceptance with God and are accounted righteous (or, just) in his sight; and we yield ourselves to him and his service that his righteousness may be reproduced in us and in our human lives. Thus we come to do

III. THAT WORK OF MAN WHICH IS THE WILL OF GOD. Paul was to “know his will” (Act 22:14), and was to do that will by the accomplishment of his life-work, viz. by “being his witness unto all men.” This, too, in our way and measure is to be our lifework, even as it was our Lord’s (Joh 18:37). We are to bear witness of Christian truth by

(1) exemplary behavior;

(2) a devout and generous spirit;

(3) the word of testimony and exhortation,

this latter is to be experimental, such as is suggested by our own actual experience. Every Christian life is a failure if it be not an epistle read and known of all who are there to read it.C.

Act 22:23-30

The earthly and the heavenly citizenship.

The most interesting and the most distinctively Christian truth contained in this passage is that which we gain by contrasting the citizenship of ancient Rome with that of the kingdom of Christ. But we may also let these verses remind us of

I. THE INHUMANITY OF HEATHENISM. “The chief captain bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know,” etc. (Act 22:24). What an inhuman and brutal procedure to extract evidence or confession by scourgingby cruel, relentless laceration of the body! It is painful to think how, in this as in many another respect, departure from God meant distance from all justice and benignity. It is, indeed, all too true that pagan law passed on many of its usages to Christian legislature, and that down to even recent times harsh and stern things have dishonored the statute-books of Christian lands; but these have been

(1) diametrically opposed to the spirit of Jesus Christ,

(2) implicitly condemned by his words, and

(3) have been (or are being) disowned and disestablished by his followers.

II. THE EXCELLENCY OF HUMAN LAW AND DISCIPLINE. Utterly defective as Roman law was, it shone in brilliant contrast with Jewish frenzy. How pitiable, not to say contemptible, the crowd crying out, rending their clothes, flinging dust in the air, in their uncontrollable passion (Act 22:23)! Excellent, indeed, as compared with this, the rate custody of the Roman soldiery (Act 22:24), the immediate regard paid to his claim of citizenship (Act 22:26-29), the determination of the chief captain to bring Paul before the council in a legitimate and orderly way (Act 22:30). With all defects and severities, law and discipline are immeasurably superior to the violent excitements of an incensate and ungovernable mob.

III. THE RECTITUDE OF CLAIMING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The man who is perpetually asserting his rights is a man as far, in spirit, from the likeness of Jesus Christ as he is far, in fact, from the enjoyment of the esteem of man. God blesses him as little as man loves him. But obviously there are times when it is not only our right but our duty to assert our claims. Paul did so here (Act 22:25), and most justifiably; there was no reason why he should suffer and be weakened by suffering when he could escape by making a lawful claim. We do well to be self-assertive so long as we do not acquire the spirit of selfishness and do not give the impression of being self-centered. We do well, when we act thus with a distinct view to the benefit of others, to our own spiritual well-being, or to the extension of the kingdom of Christ.

IV. THE EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY CITIZENSHIP. (Act 22:27, Act 22:28.) Paul acceded to the citizenship in virtue of his birth; he was free born. The chief captain obtained it by purchase. Others gained it by valuable military or civil service, or by favor of some illustrious man. Entrance into the kingdom of God cannot be gained thus.

(1) Not by birth (Joh 1:13),

(2) nor by purchase (Act 8:20),

(3) nor by the favor of man (Joh 1:13),

(4) nor by meritorious behavior (Eph 2:9),

do we become citizens of the spiritual kingdom and heirs of eternal life. It is rather by the influence of the Spirit of God upon and within us (Joh 3:5), and by our appropriate and corresponding action in responseby penitence of spirit and humble faith in a Divine Savior (Act 20:21), that we become true subjects of the great King, and have our names entered on that blessed roll which is the Book of Life.C.

HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON

Act 22:1-21

Paul’s self-defense before the Jews.

“Brothers and fathers.” These words fell from his lips in the Hebrew tongue, and a hush fell upon them. If we desire to be listened to with attention, we must speak to the people “in their own tongue.”

I. THE PERIOD BEFORE CONVERSION. (Act 22:3-5.) He speaks throughout of himself; but in the background of his thought is the providence and the grace of Him who had called him out from darkness into his marvelous light. He was a Jew, strictly educated in the Law, and a zealot for God. And yet a persecutor. A lesson for us all against the over-valuation of learning and of orthodoxy. He had tried the way of zealotry and persecution, as Luther had tried that of monkery, sincerely seeking salvation, but without success. The memory of his earlier time is one mingled with thankfulness and penitence, as indeed all our memories must be. In his good education and in his unhappy errors he could trace the hand of God. Boasting is in every case excluded.

II. HIS CONVERSION. (Act 22:6-15.)

1. The great light from heaven on the way to Damascus. It disclosed the dark ways of sin and error in which the heart had been wandering; and at the same time lighted up the ways of Divine grace by which the convinced soul was to be led, and the path of duty the new-born soul was to follow. He is led by the hand, as into a mystery, which only the Divine wisdom shall gradually unfold. Jesus, still lead on! Like led children ever we enter the kingdom of heaven.

2. The ordination by the hands of Ananias. A pious man according to the Law. God knows all his servants, and the work for which each is best fitted. Here is a mirror for all preachers. They should bring to the office knowledge and experience of the working of God’s grace upon the heart. They must in their office be like St. Paulwitnesses before all men, by word and conversation, of that which they have seen and heard. And their comfort may in like manner be that he who has called will strengthen, edify, and support them in their calling.

III. HIS COMMISSION. (Act 22:17-21.) He is praying in the temple, his soul overwhelmed by the weight of those Divine communications. The voice says, “Hasten, and go quickly out of Jerusalem!” Paul meets the call with reluctance. This struggle is among the incidents of the strife of the Spirit of God with our spirit. We would stay when he bids to go. “Lord, I will follow thee, but” Sometimes it is fear, as in Jonah’s case; sometimes it is modesty, as with Moses and Jeremiah; or conscientiousness, as with Peter (Act 10:14); or compassion, as with Abraham at Sodom, and Paul with Israel. Over against all our buts stands the firm command of God, “Go hence!” Only he who overcomes his hesitation in full trust in the perfect right and wisdom of that command will be enabled by-and-by to say, “He has done all things well.”J.

Act 22:22-29

Damager and deliverance.

At length the latent envy of the Jewish audience breaks forth. “Away with such a man from the earth!”

I. DANGER INCURRED IN WITNESS FOR THE TRUTH, (Act 22:22-27.) The wild force of fanaticism has to be encountered again and again. These scenes are a warning against fostering it. It dishonors God, under the pretext of jealousy for his honor; ill treats the innocent; disgraces itself, turning men into wild beasts.

II. DIVINE DELIVERANCE OF THE SERVANT OF GOD.

1. It is brought about by the right feeling of the Roman captain, together with the civil privileges of the apostle. And he obtains a new opportunity for self-justification.

2. It tends to illustrate his character. The violence offered to him elicits a gentle and lowly reply (Act 22:25; Joh 18:23). Outwardly ill treated, he remains inwardly unhurt. Momentarily trodden in the dust, he rises to eternal honors.

III. THE NOBILITY OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD. It is acquired by the new birth. It is sealed by the Spirit of God. It is proved by trial, conflict, and affliction. It appears in full glory in the heavenly state. Their privileges areexemption from fear in the presence of the powers of this world; inviolate safety from the violence of evil men; independence of the judgment of the world. “Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be.”J.

Act 22:30

Act 23:11.

Paul before the high council.

I. THE SIMPLICITY AND SINCERITY OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE.

1. This gives manly courage and confidence.

2. It acts as a touchstone upon his foes, exposing their injustice, bringing those passionate and unfair in spirit to light. Ananias’s answer to Paul’s dignified statement is a blow on the mouth.

3. At the same time, it imparts childlike humility. Great was the provocation to a high spirit like that of Paul. His first passionate answer contrasts with that of Jesus on the same occasion (Joh 8:23). But on the remonstrance of the bystanders, he apologizes for the exclamation. Either he did not recognize Ananias for the presiding high priest; or, recognizing, he meant to intimate that, while he had all respect for the office, he had none for the person who thus abused it. “If Paul,” says Luther, “thus assails the priest who was ordained according to the Law of Moses, why should! dread to assail the painted bishops and ghosts who come from the pope, without any command from God and man?”

4. Self-possession and prudence, with sincerity (Act 23:6). Paul is the sheep among the wolves (Mat 10:16). There was both tact and truth in this confession. He was a Pharisee by birth and education, and also by present position, as he upheld the authority of the Divine Law in opposition to the frivolity of the Sadducees. That was the common ground on which he and the Pharisees Stood. Paul says what is simply true. It is only self-control, sincerity, and simplicity which can give tree firmness and consistency.

II. THE INCONSISTENCIES OF DISHONESTY. (Act 23:7, etc.) There was a split in the assembly, occasioned by Paul’s confession. It is a picture of what is ever going on in the world. Sects and parties fall asunder, and make free space and passage for the truth of God. Party spirit drew the Pharisees over to Paul; yet God’s wisdom reaches its end by this means. He makes the wrath of man to praise him. The Roman officer takes, as usual, the part of an indifferentist, and orders the removal of the prisoner. Thus the contending parties are silenced, and their objects are defeated by their own passion and violence, while the cause of right prevails.

III. THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN. Great need brings great comfort. God is content with the witness he has borne. Greater than the trials from foes are those which arise from the self-doubts of a sensitive conscience. Have we said and done our best? The disappointment of the result reflects itself in the trouble of the conscience. But the results are not of our command; the purpose is. We cannot command success; but we may deserve it, and enjoy the testimony of a good conscience. The “comfort wherewith I am comforted of God.” It compensates for the unjust judgment of the world; for the insults to one’s office; for the griefs of self-condemnation. Above all, it strengthens for the conflicts of the future. It is a laurel on the brow of the hero of God, the word: “Thou shalt bear witness again.” Henceforward the apostolic history turns upon the witness which Paul is to fulfill at Rome. Lessons: The true Christian witness must have, first of all, the good conscience within his breast. The violence of the foes of truth will then be a certificate in his favor; he will enjoy the sympathy of the honest and unprejudiced on earth, and the assurance of the Divine Judge in heaven.J.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Act 22:1-21

Paul’s defense of himself to the people.

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. On the castle stairs.

2. Addressed to a tumultuous mob, full of passionate, murderous feeling, quelled for the moment by Paul’s self-control and the captain’s influence, showing that they feared Rome, though they feared not God, and had no desire to know the truth.

3. The magic of the Hebrew tongue, that is, the Syriac or Aramaic Hebrew, which touched their national sympathies, and at once laid to rest any suspicions that Paul was a foreigner desecrating the temple.

II. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH. Facts speak for themselves. Once I was blind as you; now I see. The convert relating his experience. Power of such testimonies when simply and faithfully narrated. The evidence that Jesus was the Christ. The reason for Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.

III. THE DOOM OF JERUSALEM FORESHADOWED. “They will not receive of thy testimony concerning me.” Resistance to the Holy Ghost. Stephen’s blood was crying out, and now they would have Paul’s. The messenger sent from heaven unto the Gentiles betokened the Divine judgments about to be poured out on Jerusalem, and the blessing taken from them and given to those who would return faithfully the fruits of the vineyard.

IV. THE HOLY BOLDNESS OF THE MAN who could speak thus to an infuriated mob. His confidence in truth, in his own mission, in the works of the Spirit, in the future of the Christian Church; and his fearlessness of man.R.

Act 22:22-30

Rescue of the prisoner and reference of his cause to the Jewish Sanhedrim.

Notice

I. THE POWER OF PREJUDICE. The very word “Gentile” exasperates Jews, yet they were separated from Gentiles, not to hate them, but to save them.

II. The close connection between IGNORANCE AND VIOLENCE. Knowledge helps patience; patience promotes knowledge.

III. THE CRUELTY OF POWER when it is exercised without righteousness. Torture was at once a confession of weakness and a violation of the rights of man. Law can need no cruelty to support it. It must be based upon truth and benevolence, or it is not righteous law. While the noisy tumult of the mob showed the corrupt state of the Jewish nation, the scene in the castle revealed the imperfection and worthlessness of mere human rule. Both facts were the cries of the world for the kingdom of God.

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF TRUE RELIGION in enlightening the mind, calming the feelings, strengthening the will, and preparing the man for trials. The example of Paul one of exalted self-possession and heroism, together with astonishing intelligence and discernment of character. The thought of using his Roman citizenship at that moment was doubtless a suggestion of God’s Spirit.

V. PROVIDENCE in the government of the world. The Roman state needed to prepare the way for the gospel. The two citizenshipsof the earthly kingdom, of the heavenly, compared in the two men, Lysias and Paul. Little the parents of the apostle could have anticipated how that Roman privilege would work into his history. We should give our children all we can to prepare them for future life. Grace and providence work together. The world’s alarm opens the way for the gospel.

VI. THE REAL CONFLICT, not between Christianity and political power, but between true and false religion. The chief priests and the council face to face with the representative of Christ. A corrupted Judaism must be swept out of the way. After that is done, then Christianity will be ready for its still greater mission to evangelize the whole world, beginning with the Roman empire. The three parties representedthe Christian, the rabbinical, the heathen.R.

HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER

Act 22:1

A model self-defense.

We enter in this chapter on matter which is to some degree repetition (Act 9:1-43.). The repetition is valuable for several reasons. It both adds and omits some particulars. It gives us Paul’s own version in his own words, instead of what must still have been essentially his own version, but which was probably rehearsed in the historian’s words. It gives us the advantage also of comparison in those parts which exhibit slight differences, and we gain a fuller impression of Paul’s experience. We may imagine that Paul bad been almost tremblingly anxious the past hour or two for this opportunity; and the moment that the lashed and angry waves were hushed was a proud moment for him had he been merely the human orator, but much rather a prized moment as he was the Christian orator. He has heard wild and baseless accusations passionately hurled at him, and just so long as might were right, he might be supposed to hold himself answerable to unjust earthly judges, as well as to the one true Judge and one merciful Master. But beyond a doubt something else than personal defense was in his heart, and his eye spied a grand opportunity. For this “defense” it may be claimed that it is

I. THE DEFENSE OF A MAN. For:

1. It must be held to be the outcome of, not craven fear, but the rising spirit of a true man. Very certain it is that not one out of a hundred would have risen to the occasion. Disheartenment, despair, perhaps disdain, would have locked close the lips of most men. But Paul does not consent to “give up,” or to show anything in the shape of temper answering to the intolerant spirit of the multitude.

2. It was the acknowledgment (however undeserved in the individual case) of the respect naturally due in the society of human life from one man to his fellows. Such respect is all the more to be honored in the observance by the man who, whether Paul or Galileo, may be confessedly making a “new departure” of wide significance. History shows that it has been the lot of such men, not in religion only, to be made sufferers. The noblest examples of martyrs have been of those who have done nothing to bring it upon themselves by any manifestation of the defiant spirit.

3. Every word of it was the utterance of conscious rectitude.

4. It was a noble, typical example of the strength “in its glory” of the individual conscience against the senseless strength and intolerance of a mob.

II. THE DEFENSE OF A CHRISTIAN. For:

1. This defense was through the whole length of it a connected confession to a change wrought by Christ. The change was a great one. The pride of man offered every conceivable hindrance to it. The surrender was one that meant the profoundest acknowledgment of the opponent’s victory. And Christ was the victor’s Name. When Paul, therefore, defends his altered self and his altered course of life, his altered faith and hopes and methods, there is not an aspect of the defense which can be described as other than Christian.

2. The defense of himself was forthwith transmuted by Paul into a testimony for Christ. This was the mark and very stamp of both Christian design and Christian method. With manifest fire of zeal, he seizes the favorable and welcomed opportunity. He gives us the impression that this is the thing that has been in his eye of late. Paul may have been answerable in some degree for the commotion of the day. If so, now his task, embraced with all the energy that the very spirit of fidelity can throw into it, is to proclaim Christ. And when a man will so even vindicate himself as yet more to testify Christ, his self-vindication merits at least the title of the defense of a true Christian man.

3. This defense was perfect in its temper, and free from all betrayal of irritation; it makes its statement of facts with the utmost simplicity, but with unwavering confidence.

4. Lastly, at the point of supreme danger, it does not turn aside. The fact which Paul well knew was intolerable to the ears of his hearers, but vital to the truth, is steadily pursued, is arrived at, and then is distinctly announced, without an attempt at qualifying it or softening its effect. This was “not shunning to declare the whole counsel of God.” And it marked the quality of the Christian hero; it spoke the firmness of the Christian martyr; perhaps best of all it established conclusively the title of Paul to the name of the true Christian man.B.

Act 22:1-22

The testimony of religious experience.

Not now dwelling upon the details of Saul’s conversion, treated of for the most part under the consideration of the ninth chapter, we may observe that we have here Paul’s own account of it, that is to say, we have his own rehearsal of his conversion, and so far forth religious experience. We may use the opportunity for the purpose of illustrating the right occasion and use of the individual declaring to the world “what the Lord has done for his soul. This is in some cases an undoubted duty, and the neglect of it an undoubted dereliction of duty. Many, no doubt, are the occasions that lie on the border-line of expediency, and even of duty. And, as in many, many other things, it is then that the solemn claims of individual responsibility are either seen and honored or dishonored. We may, therefore, observe some of the facts involved in a man’s confession of his own religious experience before the Church and the world.

I. IT AMOUNTS TO A FORCIBLE TESTIFYING TO THE FACT OF THE WORKING AND FORCE OF GOD‘S PRESENCE IN HUMAN LIFE.

II. IT IS A STIMULUS OR OTHERWISE AN ABIDING REBUKE TO OTHER MEN WHO OWN TO NO LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS OF THAT PRESENCE OR CO–OPERATION WITH IT.

III. IT IS HELPFUL GUIDANCE IN MANY DIRECTIONS TO THOSE “WHO BELIEVE” IN THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS COURSE.

IV. IT FREQUENTLY OFFERS AMAZING INSTANCES OF THE GOODNESS, LOVE, AND POWER OF GOD AND OF CHRIST AND OF THE SPIRIT.

V. IT ABOUNDS IN EXEMPLIFICATIONS OF HUMAN NATURE UNDER CERTAIN MOST SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND TREATMENT, AND OF ITS BEHAVIOUR UNDER SUCH TREATMENT.

VI. IT IS NOT ONLY HONORING TO GOD AND A GLORIFYING OF HIM, BUT IT IS USEFUL TO MEN, TO BIND THEMSELVES BY SOLEMN OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC PROFESSION BEFORE MEN.B.

Act 22:14

“That Just One.”

Paul here quotes from Ananias a term used to designate Jesus Christ. Its Scripture history as applied to Christ, and its significance as touching some of the deepest aspects of Christ’s relations to humanity, are very worthy of some fixed attention. Notice

I. THE SCRIPTURE HISTORY OF THE EPITHET, “THAT JUST ONE,” AS APPLIED TO CHRIST. Six occasions in the historical portions of the New Testament illustrate its use, namely, when it comes from the lips of Pilate’s wife and afterwards of Pilate (Mat 27:19, Mat 27:24); from the lips of the Roman centurion (Luk 23:47); of Peter (Act 3:14); of Stephen (Act 7:52); and of Ananias in the special quotation of Paul now (Act 22:14). These testimonies are noticeable for the directness of their language, for the special identification of Christ as “this just Man,” or “that just Man,” or “the Just One,” and for the character in each case of those who uttered them.

II. THE DEEPER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAME EPITHET AS APPLIED TO CHRIST.

1. Christ is the perfectly “righteous” One, and the only perfectly righteous One. All others have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. No other has kept the Law entirelykept it in deed, in word, in thought, in affection, in zeal.

2. Christ’s perfect righteousness is the qualification of the Mediator, that real, solemn, thrilling relationship which he sustained as between God and man.

3. Christ’s perfect righteousness constituted the essential qualification of the propitiatory sacrifice. He “suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1Pe 3:18). The “Advocate with the Father, and the Propitiation for out’ sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world, is Jesus Christ the Righteous” (1Jn 2:2)

4. Christ’s perfect righteousness constitutes the perfection of his fitness to be Teacher and Exemplar to men on earth.

5. Christ’s perfect righteousness is the stability of his throne of judgment, to be ere very long beheld and approached by every man who is or ever has been. He is “the Lord, the righteous Judge” (2Ti 4:8).B.

Act 22:14, Act 22:15

The calling and the gifts of God.

The apostle himself elsewhere speaks (Rom 11:29) of” the gifts and the calling of God;” and of them he says that they “are without repentance.” The glorious occasion to which he gives prominence in the words of these verses exhibits the “calling” first, and the “gifts” next. At the same time, this same passage describes the calling of God (separate and sovereign act though it be in itself) as introductory to responsibilities, privileges, and gifts that followed upon it. There is not such a thing as a calling of God, to lie dormant. There is not such a thing as a calling of God, to terminate in the mere use or enjoyment of the person called. A calling of God infers a commission consequent upon itnay, nothing less than involved in it under any circumstances. Here, however, it is not implied only, it is expressed as well, and that in a very significant mode. For immediate upon the mention of the calling or choosing comes that of

I. A GREAT QUALIFICATION.

1. The Christian apostle, minister, teacher, must be one who “knows the will” of God.

2. He must be one who knows it very directly from the fountain-head. Hearsay will not suffice, imagination will not suffice, reason will not suffice.

II. A GRAND PRIVILEGE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT QUALIFICATION. Though Paul “was as one born out of clue season,” these things are vouchsafed to him, namely, to “see” and to “hear” the “Just One.” Some think Saul had seen Christ in the flesh. This passage may contribute something confessedly inconclusive to the disadvantage of the supposition. It is overwhelmingly improbable, in that Paul never speaks of it, as surely he would have done if it had been the case, even as he speaks of having seen Stephen and assisted at his martyrdom. This great grace, however, is now vouchsafed to Saul, that with vision of thousandfold force he is given to see the very Jesus ascended, and that with a keenness to hear beyond anything that he had experienced before he is granted to hear the own voice of the glorified Man Jesus. It is not that Saul had earned the giftnay, it is not that to the end of a devoted life of fullest self-surrender he will ever be able to earn the gift. Paul is the disclaimer of merit. Nor is all the grace for Paul. How many lesser successors to him have taken their share of benefit, and the whole Church its share, when these have recalled that Jesus teaches:

1. How near a connection is necessary between himself and his servant-pioneers of the truth and heralds of salvation.

2. To this end how near he is willing to condescend to come to those servants.

3. And how he would embolden them to draw near to him in most believing faith and most loving trust of the heart, when the times should be such that he would no longer come in vision to them.

III. A VAST RESPONSIBILITY. It needs an angel intellect and an archangel heart to set an estimate at all equal to the truth upon the work committed into human hands when the ministry of Christ is accepted by them. They are then “witnesses for Christ to men.” And three features of their great responsibility are here shadowed forth.

1. They are witnesses to a living One, a Personage, and not to a mere truth.

2. They are witnesses to him of the things that they know of “the Word of life” (1Jn 1:1), through having seen him, heard him, looked upon him, and handled him, all in the deepest sense.

3. They are witnesses” to all men,” as far as they can possibly in any way reach all men, and under any circumstances to all impartially. Deep was the impression that these communications (unmentioned elsewhere) had made on the mind of Paul. The words of Ananias, inspired most freshly as he was from the source, had dwelt deep-stored in his memory. And now, some twenty-five years afterwards, at a crisis most opportune, they come to the surface, they are full-charged with their own vitality; and are practically commended by Paul as embodying the charter of all who should be “witnesses for Christ.”B.

Act 22:18-21

Men’s past sins often the unknown determiners of their future life, its opportunities, and its disqualifications.

It is possible to take different views of the drift and the intended tenor of this passage. The language of Saul (which Paul now quotes), as found in Act 22:19, Act 22:20, will be very far from powerless, whether read as a view humbly offered in harmony with the command just laid upon him, or as perhaps is the more probable, in deprecation of it. The passage, however, reminds us, amid high associations of great truths, of solemn far-reaching principles in human life. The retribution which it enwraps is not that of the severity of judgment to the sinner, but of the inevitableness of that cause and effect which speak a Creator-God of infinite wisdom, and a creature-man of reason, of moral capabilities, and of a certain freedom of action, that lies at the root of moral responsibility and final accountability. Notice, then

I. A CAREER OF UNTOLD POSSIBILITIES OF USEFULNESS AND HONOR IN THE MOTHER CITY JERUSALEM CUT SHOUT FOR PAUL.

1. We could imagine reasons why Paul would have felt his highest ambition fired by testifying, working, suffering, and dying for Jesus in Jerusalem, as;

(1) The mother city of the land and of God’s favored people, renowned with ancient and special renown,

(2) The place at the very heart of Jewish life, where he would have longed to recant most publicly his one-time errors of creed, and retrieve whatever it were possible to retrieve of the effects of those errors. This would have been of what was most noble among the characteristics of Paul.

(3) The place which held the same relation to the religious world that Rome did to the heathen world.

(4) The place where the Master bore the grandest testimony of all his course, and suffered and died.

2. It needs little imagination to see that, let alone any sense of a noble ambition, Paul would feel that it would be one of the grandest opportunities of usefulness, at the very center of typical and peculiar risk and danger. From all this Paul is interdicted by a voice of sovereign authority, and on the plain ground of his own past of error.

II. A REMEDY IN CHRIST AGAINST ABJECT HOPELESSNESS, AGAINST SETTLED DESPAIR, AGAINST REMORSEFUL THROWING UP OF ENDEAVOR, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RETRIBUTIVE ASPECTS OF HUMAN LIFE. The veto of Jesus Christ, spoken with authority to Paul, is nothing else than linked with a summons to other work and another sphere, that may turn into all equal usefulness and probably usefulness far greater. Notice the method of that summons.

1. Though to state the ground of it might be pain and might give pain, it is not wrapt in vague mystery and unsatisfying innuendo. It is, on the other hand, a grand instance of “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”

2. The summons exhibits a very distinct and emphatic value set upon the life and the useful employment of the servant somewhere or other. Twice, nay, thrice repeated is the direction to depart with “haste,” “quickly,” and unquestioningly. Men may depart like Jonah. But also they may depart for

(1) Christ’s own command, announced in the individual conscience or by the living Spirit; and

(2) for greater toil and exposure, instead of for ease and hiding from work.

3. The summons announces, by a most gracious anticipation, an highly important substitute career. The man who has incapacitated himself by follies, by errors, even by sins, for some of the noblest of Christian service shall still not be cast away as useless. He is still good to do something; yes, to do much. The Master does not refuse the love or the service of the fallen, when they return, nor does he consent to treat with them only through others. First he saves them and protects them, and suggests his care and love of them. Then he gives them their work, though “far hence.” And lastly, he does not withhold from their car to hear his own voice, “I will send thee.” What trust, what love, what forgivingness, and what streams of hope Jesus has to giveand gives to his own!B.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

Act 22:3

The sincerity of St. Paul’s Judaism.

“I am verily a man which am a Jew.” This remarkable speech was addressed to a particular audience, under particular circumstances, and it was precisely adapted to that audience. It took careful account of their knowledge and of their prejudices. It was conciliatory in tone, but firm to the truth and manly in spirit. It is impossible for us to admire too highly the calmness and the self-command of the apostle under such perilous circumstances. Instances may be given from political life of the power of a skilful orator to sway an excited mob, such as that of Lamartine in times of the French Revolution. The introduction of this homily should deal with

(1) the scene;

(2) the audience;

(3) the orator.

1. The scene. Dean Plumptre has the following suggestive note:”The position was one which raised him (St. Paul) above the people, and the characteristic gesture commanded instant attention. And he spoke, not as they expected, in the Greek, which belonged to one who fraternized with the Gentiles, but in the Hebrew, or Aramaic, which he had studied at the feet of Gamaliel. It was a strange scene for that Feast of Pentecost. The face and form of the speaker may have been seen from time to time by some during his passing visits to Jerusalem; but there must have been many who had not heard him take part in public action since the day when, twenty-five years before, he had kept the garments of those who were stoning Stephen. And now he was there, accused of the selfsame crimes, making his defense before a crowd as wild and frenzied as that of which he had then been the leader.”

2. The audience. Notice that it was largely composed of foreign Jews, who were present at the feast; and that those foreign Jews were often more intensely bigoted than the Jerusalem Jews,they would certainly have more knowledge of St. Paul, and more personally antagonistic feelings against him. Some of them had recognized him, and raised the excitement which nearly led to his death. Show how utterly unreasonable such a mob becomes; no appeal can be made to their intelligence; usually they can only be dispersed by force, or their excitement must be allowed to spend itself and wear itself out.

3. The orator; a weak, frail man, with a personal presence which men called contemptible, but with the natural gift for swaying an audience. As soon as he spoke men were hushed to listen, as they always are when the born orator stands before them. Perhaps St. Paul’s gifts as a writer have filled our thought, so that we have not duly recognized what a splendid “command of men” he had in his great gift of speech. The point which he sought to impress on his audience on this occasion was the “sincerity of his Judaism.” That was the thing impugned. He was declared to be such an unworthy Jew that he had defiled the temple by bringing an Ephesian Gentile into it. The proper answer was a full declaration of his honest and complete loyalty to Judaism. This he made

I. BY ADDRESSING THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE. Not in Gentile Greek. “It might be that he did this simply because they understood it better, but it may have been also because, as the language showed him to be a countryman of their own, they were disposed to think him less guilty than the Asian Jews had represented him to be” (F. Bungener). “One who spoke in Hebrew was not likely to blaspheme the sacred Hebrew books.”

II. BY ASSURING THEM OF HIS LIFELONG LOYALTY TO HEBREW PRINCIPLES. His birth was unquestionably Jewish. His education was most distinctly Jewish; for he was even educated at Jerusalem, and by their most honored teacher. His Judaism was so sincere and so intense that he had been the most active and energetic persecutor of the Nazarenes. And Ananias, the well-known devout Jew, had brought God’s commands to him (Act 22:12).

III. BY AFFIRMING THAT, IF HE SEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN A NEW LINE, HE HAD ONLY OBEYED JEHOVAH, THE GOD OF THEIR HEBREW FATHERS. This is the point of St. Paul’s advance. Jehovah had appeared to him, had given him special directions, and, as a loyal Jew, he could only obey those directions. Jehovah had shown him that Jesus was Messiah. Jehovah had sent him forth on his mission among the Gentiles. He had never dishonored Judaism, never broken with it. He was still the same “born Jew” as ever (Act 22:14).R.T.

Act 22:6-10

The claims of a personal Divine revelation.

The incidents here narrated have been previously considered in their bearing on St. Paul’s conversion. The apostle now repeats the story, with a definite purpose. He is on his defense, and he is striving to show that throughout his life he had been loyal to Judaism, and in the matters which men misrepresented he had but followed and obeyed special Divine directions given to him. He had visions and commands direct from God, and, as a Jew, he “dared not be disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Such a defense was most effective for his audience, as no true Jew would deny that Jehovah might choose any of his people for special service, and give them immediate visions and directions. So we find the people heard the apostle patiently until he referred to the “Gentiles,” and then national jealousy and religious bigotry were aroused, and uncontrolled passion put St. Paul’s life again in peril.

I. PERSONAL DIVINE REVELATIONS HAVE COME IN EVERY AGE. Distinguish between the ordinary inspirations which may direct a man’s preaching and writing, and the special occasions on which God may tell his mind and purpose, or give some trust and some work to an individual. Such personal revelations do not necessarily affirm the superiority in character, or in Divine favor, of the person communicated with; but they always declare the Divine recognition of a special fitness and adaptation for the work assigned; and our attention should be fixed on the fitness and the work rather than on the privilege that may be involved in having such a trust. Illustrations of personal revelations may be taken from

(1) the patriarchal age;

(2) the times of the judges;

(3) the prophets. It should be shown how well the selection of individuals, and direct communication with them, fits in with the idea of a theocracy. God, as actual and ever-present Sovereign of the nation, has the right to ask for any man’s service, and to address himself directly to whomsoever he pleases. And nothing is more reasonable than to expect he will do so. Coming to later times, we get illustration

(4) from John the Baptist;

(5) from the Lord Jesus Christ regarded as a man called to a special mission; and

(6) from the apostles, e.g. St. Peter in the matter of Cornelius. What is called the conversion of St. Paul, but is more properly his call, is a case in perfect harmony with all that had gone before in the history of the nation. The God of the fathers, Jehovah, the theocratic King, had, by a gracious manifestation of himself and of his will, called the apostle to his service. This was the sole and all-sufficient explanation of his life and conduct; and this became his entire defense”A revelation from God, the God of my fathers, has come to me, and I must obey it.” Compare the main argument of Stephen’s speech, which is thisGod has not only spoken to our own nation in the Mosaic system, he has spoken directly to individuals age after age, but it has always been characteristic of the Jewish nation that they have resisted these prophet-revealers of God’s will. Theoretically, they would admit that God might send messages directly to individuals; practically, they refused to recognize such messengers. This was proved once again in the case of St. Paul.

II. PERSONAL DIVINE REVELATIONS MAY COME NOW. This truth it may be difficult for us to receive; and, indeed, it needs to be stated with careful limitations and qualifications. Under the ministration of the Spirit, and with the Spirit actually witnessing in our hearts, it would seem that we can expect no direct Divine communications. Yet they do surely come to open hearts. It may be shown that they are granted:

1. In the spheres of truth. We cannot conceive of finality in the written revelation we have, but we may be sure that all further revelations will be in perfect harmony with that we have. We may, however, rather look for new apprehensions of truth than new truth.

2. In the spheres of duty. In the perplexing circumstances of life, hearts that are really open to God, and dependent on him, do receive direct Divine guidance.

3. In the spheres of work. God still speaks directly to the souls of his servants, calling some to the missionary field, some to the ministry, some to service for the children, and some to philanthropic labors. And, still, none of us may be “disobedient unto the heavenly vision.”R.T.

Act 22:21

Paul’s commission to the Gentiles.

“I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” In the narrative given in Act 9:15 this command is said to have come direct to Ananias, and to have been by him communicated to St. Paul. Of the direct message to St. Paul himself subsequently, at Jerusalem, this appears to be our only account (comp. the narrative in Act 26:17). It is to be noticed that, though St. Paul thus distinctly knew what his mission was, he waited patiently until Divine directions or Divine providence clearly opened the way for him. And, while he waited, he cheerfully did the work which came to his hand. We proceed to dwell on three points:

(1) the sphere to which St. Paul was sent;

(2) the fitness of St. Paul for work in this particular sphere; and

(3) the influence which work in this sphere had upon St. Paul’s own apprehensions of the truth. Noticing first what a strain upon his own Jewish feelings it must have involved for him to undertake this work, and how his doing so proves the sincerity and completeness of his conversion.

I. THE SPHERE TO WHICH THE APOSTLE WAS SENT. “The Gentiles.” Jews divided the whole world into Jews and Gentiles; so St. Paul’s mission was to all outside the Jewish nation. Illustrate how the prevalence of the Greek tongue, and the wide supremacy of the Roman rule, at this time opened the whole world to the gospel. Illustrate what variety of classes and of people the apostle met with in traveling, as he did, from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum. Recall the circumstances under which the apostle came to leave the synagogues and devote himself exclusively to the Gentile populations. And show what preparation there was for the gospel in Gentile spheres,

(1) in the common religious wants of men; and

(2) in the sense of dissatisfaction with idolatry which then so widely prevailed. As representative of the various Gentile spheres, give some account of Lystra, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome.

II. THE FITNESS OF THE APOSTLE FOR WORK IN THIS PARTICULAR SPHERE. Find the fitnesses in:

1. His birth as a Grecian Jew.

2. His knowledge of the Greek language, and partial Greek education. All the other apostles were Aramaic Jews. St. Paul’s early associations prepared him to take larger and more comprehensive views of Christian truth, when once his strong Jewish prejudices were overcome.

3. His unquestioning sense of a Divine call.

4. The permanent influence exerted on him by Stephen’s death, and probably by Stephen’s teachings.

5. The clear apprehension he had of Christian truth, in its distinction from, but full harmony with, the principles of Judaism. 6. Further fitness may be found on a careful estimate of St. Paul’s peculiarities of mind, disposition, and character.

III. THE INFLUENCE WHICH WORK IN HIS SPHERE HAD UPON THE APOSTLE‘S OWN APPREHENSIONS OF THE TRUTH. This is a difficult subject to treat, and involves a very close study of St. Paul’s doctrinal position at different points of his ministry. To open it out wisely, the Epistles must be chronologically arranged and fitted into the record in the Acts, and compared with the apostle’s speeches. An illustration may be taken from the Epistle to the Ephesians, which clearly shows that the mystical and superstitious people of Ephesus exercised such an influence on St. Paul as led him to consider some great speculative questions, and, we may say, tended to exercise and develop his mystical faculty. The influence of work among the Gentiles may be illustrated in relation:

1. To doctrine. It led to the first attempts at a philosophy of the Christian religion.

2. To practical Christian life. St. Paul had to find out how to adjust Christian principles to Gentile life and manners, and so he was led to develop a system of Christian ethics. Impress that the work to which God calls us will also be

(1) our service to others; and

(2) our own personal culture.R.T.

Act 22:22, Act 22:23

The unreasoning excitement of crowds.

The action of this crowd is in most respects similar to that of crowds in all ages and in all districts; but in some of its features it was characteristically Eastern. “A great similarity appears between the conduct of the Jews when the chief captain of the Roman garrison at Jerusalem presented himself in the temple, and the behavior of the Persian peasants when they go to court to complain of the governors under whom they live, upon their oppressions becoming intolerable. Sir John Chardin tells us respecting them, that they carry their complaints against their governors by companies, consisting of several hundreds, and sometimes of a thousand; they repair to that gate of the palace near to which their prince is most likely to be, where they begin to make the most horrid cries, tearing their garments, and throwing dust into the air, at the same time demanding justice. The king, upon hearing these cries, sends to know the occasion of them. The people deliver their complaint in writing, upon which he lets them know that he will commit the cognizance of the affair to some one by whom justice is usually done them” (Paxton). Compare the excitement of the multitudes assembled in the Ephesian theatre (Act 19:29-34).

I. THE PERILOUS INFLUENCE OF POPULAR SENTIMENT. Masses readily take up prejudices and give way to mere feeling, and so are led to do terrible things. Illustrate from the riots of country towns in the older election-times, when the people were excited by political sentiment; or by the violent scenes of the French Revolution. It is usually true of all mobs that “the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.” Sentiment is valuable as giving tone and feeling to action, but sentiment alone can never be allowed to decide and control action, because it tends to make a man at once passionate and weak. There is no wise decision, no calm judgment, no definite purpose, no solid strength of will, and so sentiment leads men to do things of which they are afterwards ashamed, to forget the reasonable claims of others, and to commit great social wrongs. The Christian man’s duty, wherever his lot may be cast, is:

1. To strive against yielding to popular sentiments on

(1) social,

(2) political,

(3) religious subjects, as injurious to his own spiritual life, and likely to make him unjust toward others.

2. To use his influence to check public excitement, and to disseminate right principles. In religious spheres, yielding to “sentiment” has often been the cause of public and private persecution. In common life, reason is the proper check of sentiment. In religious spheres, the revelation given us in God’s Word, and the direct illuminations of God’s Spirit, are the proper checks. Illustrate how, in religious spheres, untempered sentiment has often developed into “mania.”

II. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL POPULAR LEADERS. They gain their power by appeal to sentiment. Illustrate from the incidents of the text. The leaders of the Judaic party knew perfectly well that they had no case against the apostle, but they appealed to the prejudice of the people, and excited their feeling into passion, which might have led to St. Paul’s death within the temple courts. Opportunity is here given to speak of the valuable work done by the revivalist and the missioner, and at the same time of the responsibility of such workers, in the influence they gain over masses of people. So far as their work is merely an appeal to sentiment, it can exert but a passing, and only too possibly a mischievous, influence. So far as they become teachers of the truth and persuaders of men to duty, their work will be permanent and blessed. The Crusades illustrate the sway of the masses by sentiment; the Reformation the sway of the masses by truth.

III. THE HOPELESSNESS OF REASONING WITH EXCITED CROWDS. St. Paul tried, but he found it vain: they were carried away by the mere sound of the word “Gentiles.” Compare the scheme of the town-clerk at Ephesus. Excited masses can only be interested until their passion dies down, or dispersed by physical force. Reasoning is of no use until men have become reasonable. Show that Christ never works upon the mere crowd. He and his servants make their appeal to men who have their power of reason. They use emotion and affection, but in subordination to reason. They work by the enthusiasm of numbers, but subordinate this influence to the enforcement of the saving truth.R.T.

Act 22:25

Times to suffer, and times to get relief from suffering.

This subject is suggested by the fact that, although the apostle’s plea of his Roman birthright would have always stood him in good stead, he only used it occasionally; from which fact we may assume that he sometimes felt it was his duty to submit to suffering, and that, at other times, he equally felt it his duty to resist suffering. Probably a careful estimate of the circumstances connected with each case led to his decisions. Here we may see that no special testimony could be made by his patient enduring of suffering, seeing that he was among strangers, who knew nothing of him or his mission, so he felt at liberty to secure relief from indignity and pain, and appealed for his rights as a Roman citizen. The apostle spoke as they were preparing to scourge him. According to the Roman custom, he was stripped to the waist, and tied with leather thongs to the column, or whipping-post, which was used within the fortress for this kind of torture. “It was unlawful to scourge a Roman citizen in any case; it was an aggravation so to torture him as slaves were tortured only as a means of inquiry” (see Act 16:37). Remember the familiar passage, Ecc 3:1-8.

I. CHRIST‘S CALL TO SUFFER. Of St. Paul Christ had said, “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my Name’s sake” So to his early disciples Christ spoke of persecution and suffering as part of his disciples’ necessary lot. Compare his teachings in the sermon on the mount (Mat 5:10-12) with Joh 15:18-21.

1. As an historical fact, the earlier apostles found, suffering attend on fulfilling Christ’s mission; and the Apostle Paul had a life full of peril and of pain.

2. As a fact of present observation, suffering is very largely the Christian’s lot. It comes partly by reason of his conflict with evil in himself and in the world, and partly as a Divine arrangement for his moral testing and training.

3. As a doctrine of the Divine Word, suffering is

(1) a means of sanctifying to the believer,” Tribulation worketh patience,” etc.;

(2) a means of witnessing to the world the power of God’s sustaining grace and the beauty of the Christian virtues. God has such witnesses in his great sufferers, in every age and in every sphere of life.

II. CHRIST‘S CALL TO AVOID SUFFERING. See his instructions as given to the apostles and the “seventy,” when he sent them on their trial mission. If persecuted in one city, they were to flee to another. Nay, in this avoidance of suffering, our Lord set us his own example; for, on more than one occasion he went away from a neighborhood which had become perilous, and escaped from those who would cast him from the hill-top. So St. Paul, in connection with our text, felt justified in avoiding and resisting suffering. The practical difficulty we find is to know when we should bear and when we should resist; and the following suggestions may be fully illustrated:

1. When we can recognize an immediate good in our sufferings, either a blessing of men or the glory of God, we should be prepared cheerfully to bear.

2. When the suffering plainly comes in the orderings of God’s providence, we ought to bear it.

3. When we find that we can, by patient suffering, make a needed witness for the Christian truth or the Christian spirit, we should be willing to suffer.

4. When we find ourselves among strangers and enemies we may use our influence to avoid suffering.

5. And when our suffering plainly comes from the mere willfulness or the pure ignorance of men, we do right to resist. It may also be urged that we must always follow along the line of “conscience” and “duty,” whatever consequences may follow. Therefore the “three Hebrew youths” dare not shrink from the fiery furnace, nor Daniel from the den of lions. Impress that we have an inward leading of God’s Spirit, even as St. Paul had; and that, if we will follow the lead in all simplicity, we shall be able to decide, in the circumstances of life that arise, whether it is our duty to suffer or to avoid suffering. Whether we bear or whether we refuse to bear, we must seek to glorify Christ, and do all things as part of our loving life-service rendered to him.R.T.

Act 22:28

Naturally and spiritually free born.

Rights of citizenship were obtained in various ways and on various grounds. Some men had it by birth, others by gift, others by purchase, others as the public recognition of heroic deeds. These may be illustrated in connection with the citizenship of London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other large cities. Roman citizenship was once sold at a very high rate, but in later times its value was lowered, and it was bartered for a trifle. It is not known how St. Paul’s parents obtained their citizen rights, but the apostle held his as an inheritance. St. Paul was not a citizen by virtue of his having been born in. Tarsus. “That city, in consideration of its sufferings under Cassius, and because of its adherence to Julius Caesar, was admitted by Antony to many privileges; but it was not a colony, only a free city, and that did not confer citizenship. Seine of the apostle’s ancestors, it may be assumed, had been admitted to citizenship in acknowledgment of good service, civil or military.” A distinction is made, which men still recognize, between acquired rights and natural rights; but a far higher value is set on the rights of birth than on those which can be obtained in any other way. We fix attention on the fact that St. Paul was twice free born. He held right of birth into Roman citizenship, and right of the new Divine birth into the kingdom of Christ and of heaven.

I. THE PRIVILEGES OF HUMAN BIRTH.

1. Illustrate what positions their birth puts some men in, and what consequent trusts and responsibilities come upon them.

2. Show that such privileges are not to be despised by Christian people, because they may give them noble opportunities of serving Christ.

3. Point out that any envy of those born to high station is unworthy of all who feel aright the honor of having any kind or degree of trust from God.

4. And impress that the greater the trust of position and privilege which a man may have, the heavier will be his judgment if he misuses his powers and privileges. “Of him that hath much will be required.”

II. THE PRIVILEGES OF DIVINE BIRTH. Explain the Scripture figures of” new birth,” “being born again,” and “regeneration.” Illustrate that no man can acquire a place in Christ’s kingdom by any

(1) wealth,

(2) merit,

(3) or effort.

The only entrance is by a Divine birth: “Ye must be born again;” the only possible right of the Christian is his birthright. This kind of right excludes all pride and self-satisfaction. “We are saved by grace.” It gives to God all the glory; for we are “born of God.” It changes all the aspects and relations of our lives, so that we seem to have wakened up into a new world with new powers. It lays us under serious obligations, appoints for us high and holy duties, and holds out before us a glorious future. If the Roman citizen was bound to walk worthily of his citizenship, and honor the Roman name wherever he might go, much more should those who are born of God “walk as children of light,” “walk worthy of the vocation by which they are called.” See St. Paul’s statement, “Our citizenship is in heaven.”R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Act 22:1-3 . . ] quite a national address; comp. on Act 7:2 . Even Sanhedrists were not wanting in the hostile crowd; at least the speaker presupposes their presence.

. . .] hear from me my present defence to you . As to the double genitive with , comp. on Joh 12:46 .

After Act 22:1 , a pause .

] Luke has not at the very outset settled the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct position of the , which was appropriate only after . Similar examples of the deranged position of and often occur in the classics. See Bumlein, Partik . p. 168; Winer, p. 520 [E. T. 700].

] Whether the comma is to be placed after (Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette) or after (Calvin, Beza, Castalio, and most of the older commentators, Bornemann), is seeing that the meaning and the progression of the speech are the same with either construction to be decided simply by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new element is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle: , , : born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel (see on Act 5:34 ), instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral law . The latter after the general . . . . brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not to he affirmed that . . . suits only . (de Wette).

] a respectful expression ( , Chrysostom), to be explained from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair (Schoettg. in loc .; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc . p. 179). The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a standing posture to their teachers (Vitringa, Synag . p. 166 f. Wagenseil, ad Sota , p. 993), even if it were the case (but see on Luk 2:46 ), cannot be urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra (Mat 23:2 ; Vitringa, l.c . p. 165 f).

. ] i.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in (living and ruling in) the ancestral law . The genitive depends on . Erasmus, Castalio, and others connect it with ., held to be used substantively (Hermann, ad Viger . p. 777): carefully instructed in the ancestral law . Much too tame, as careful legal instruction is after . . . . understood of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic force .

The is the law received from the fathers [134] (comp. Act 24:14 , Act 28:17 ), i.e . the Mosaic law , but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel supposes which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to bring into prominence the Mosaically orthodox strictness of his training; the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the mention of Gamaliel, but not by . . . Paul expresses himself otherwise in Phi 3:5 and Gal 1:14 .

. ] so that I was a zealot for God (for the cause and glory of God), contains a special characteristic definition to . Comp. Rom 10:2 . “Uterque locus quiddam ex mimesi habet; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo, quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,” Bengel.

[134] , Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the difference of , , and , not always preserved, however, and often obscured by interchange in the codd., see Schoemann, ad Is . p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg . p. 127; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 531 f. On , comp. 2Ma 6:1 ; Joseph. Antt . xii. 3. 3; Xen. Hell . ii. 3. 2; Thuc viii. 76. 6 :

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SECTION II
EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE IMPRISONMENT OF THE APOSTLE PAUL IN JERUSALEM. HIS DEFENCE BEFORE THE PEOPLE, AND THE GREAT COUNCIL

Act 22:1 to Act 23:11

A.THE APOSTLES DEFENCE BEFORE THE JEWISH PEOPLE

Act 22:1-21

1Men, brethren, and fathers [Ye brethren and fathers], hear ye my defence which I make [om. which I make] now unto [before] you [you] 2([Om. parenth. marks] And [But] when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue [dialect] to them, they kept the more silence [they became the more silent]: and he saith,)

3I am verily1 a man which am a Jew [I am a Jewish, man], born in Tarsus, a city [Tarsus] in Cilicia, yet [and] brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught [city, taught at the feet of Gamaliel,] according to the perfect manner [the strictness] of the law of the fathers [of the paternal law], and was zealous toward [was a zealot for] God, as ye all are [yet] this day. 4And I persecuted this way unto the [unto, .] death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders [and all the eldership]: from whom also I received [from whom I received also] letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to [that they might] be punished. 6And [But] it came to pass, that, as I made my journey [was on my journey], and was come [drew] nigh unto Damascus about noon [mid-day], suddenly there shone [flashed] from heaven a great light round about [around] me. 7And I fell2 unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8And [But] I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9And [But] they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid [affrighted];3 but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10And [But] I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into [to] Damascus; and there it shall [will] be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do [which it is appointed that thou shalt do]. 11And [But] when I could not see for the glory [brightness] of that light, being led [I was led] by the hand of them that were with me, [and thus] I came into [to] Damascus. 12And one [But a certain] Ananias, a devout4 man according to the law, having a good report of [among] all the Jews which [who] dwelt there [in the city], 13Came unto me, and [om. and] stood [approached], and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight [look up!]. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And [But] he said, The God of our fathers hath [before] chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that [the, ] Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of [his voice from ()] his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness [be a witness for him] unto all men of what [concerning that which] thou hast seen and heard. 16And now [,] why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord [on his name5]. 17And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in [fell into, ] a trance; 18And saw him saying [as he said] unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for [because, ] they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 19And I said, Lord, they know [themselves, ] that I imprisoned and beat [scourged] in every synagogue [in the synagogues, .] them that believed on thee: 20And when the blood of thy martyr [witness] Stephen6 was shed7, I also was standing by, and consenting unto [and had pleasure therein] his death [om. his death8], and kept [guarded] the raiment [garments] of them that slew him. 21And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles [among the nations].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 22:1-2. Men, brethren, and fathers.The word expresses the love which the speaker bears to his own people, and his respect for their eminent rulers, of whom some may have been present. [See Exeg. note on Act 7:2-3. a.Tr.]. The circumstance, moreover, that he addressed his hearers in their mother tongue, disposed them to listen with the more favor, as many of the number had not supposed that the man before them, whom they did not personally know, understood the Araman language.

Act 22:3-5. a. I am verily a man which am a Jew.[Even if is not cancelled (see note 1, appended to the text), it is here equivalent simply to the word indeed, as the translators often render it.Tr.]. The full account which Paul gives of himself, Act 22:3-5, is intended to remove the suspicion with which he was regarded (Act 21:28); he states that he is an Israelite by birth, that he had from early youth been connected with the city of Jerusalem, that he had, at a former period, been governed by a strictly Pharisaical zeal for the law, and had even been an enemy of Christianity. . T.. , i.e., born, it was true, in a foreign country, but brought up in Jerusalem; is used in reference to the rearing or education of children.The words . . are far more appropriately connected with . than with ., as they cannot refer to children who are brought up, but to scholars or disciples who receive instruction, while they sit on the floor or on benches before the feet of the teacher [who occupies an elevated seat.Tr.]. Such was the Jewish custom; both Philo and the Talmud testify that the Rabbi occupied a cathedra or teachers chair, and that his pupils found seats partly on the floor, and partly on benches placed before him. [Lechler here adopts the punctuation preferred by Kuinoel, Grotius, Knapp, Lach., Tisch., de Wette, Hackett, etc., and places the comma after , cancelling the one which is placed after in the usual editions of the text. rec., and which, as in the Engl. version, is recognized by Calvin, Grotius, Bornemann, Meyer, Alford, etc.For Gamaliel, see Exeg. note on Act 5:34.Tr.].. . . , i.e., the instructions corresponded to very strict views of the law; the term is not intended to describe the character of the law per se, but refers to the character of the instructions, which are, accordingly, represented as being marked by pharisaic rigor. And, indeed, and its derivatives are specially employed to describe the peculiarities of the Pharisaical tendency, e.g., , Act 26:5; certain Jews , Jos. Antiq. xvii. 2. 4; , Bell. J. ii. 8. 14.

b. And was zealous.In consequence of such an education and such instructions, Paul became a zealot for the honor of God; he expresses this thought in terms which are not open to censure. [, on account of its combination with participles in the perfect tense, acquires the meaning of the imperfect tense. (de Wette).Tr.]. The apostle, at the same time, remarks: I was once what ye are; ye are still today, indeed, at this very moment, what I too was, at a former period. As an evidence of the truth of his declaration that he had once been a zealot, he mentions his persecution of Christianity, to which latter, at this stage, he gives, with great judgment, only a general name. [ , see Exeg. note on Act 9:2.Tr.]. The statement that he had once entertained a deadly hatred against the Christians, he establishes by appealing to the testimony of the high priest [ch. Act 9:2] and all the elders, which they could easily furnish. The , in Act 22:5, as in Act 22:1, art his brethrenJews by birthJews who held the views which then prevailed in the Sanhedrin, and with whom he fully concurred in sentiment at that early period.

Act 22:6-11. And it came to pass.The apostle proceeds to give a narrative of his conversion; he first describes (Act 22:6-11) the appearance of Jesus on the road to Damascus. His statements are identical in essential points with those which are found in Act 9:3-8. See the Exegetical notes on that passage. The minor details that are peculiar to the present narrative, are introduced with a reference to the circumstances under which, at that moment, Paul and his hearers meet together. He appends, for instance, to the name of Jesus, Act 22:8; that appellation does not occur either in Act 9:5, or Act 26:15, but is very appropriately employed when Paul addresses an assemblage of unconverted Jews, to whom he mentions Jesus for the first time. Other details are chiefly intended to demonstrate the truth and reality of the appearance of Jesus Christ, e.g., , Act 22:6 ( , Act 26:13), which is not found in Act 9:3. The fact that the appearance occurred in the bright light of day, affords a pledge that the whole statement did not proceed simply from the self-delusion of a dreamer. The circumstance that Pauls attendants saw the light, Act 22:9, which is not expressly mentioned either in Act 9:7, or Act 26:14, also tends to prove the truth and reality of the appearance, which was thus observed by several persons; he adds that they did not understand the words of Jesus, in order, possibly, to explain the inability of those attendants to confirm his statements respecting the great object of the Lords appearance. He also adduces (Act 22:11) the circumstance that he had been blinded by that extraordinary light, no doubt, with the intention of furnishing additional evidence of the reality and overwhelming power of that appearance. The words , Act 22:10, imply that from that moment Paul was no longer the master of his own determinations, but was guided by the divine will. [Lechler says above: he adds that they did not understand the words of Jesus. The Engl. version says: they heard not, while Luke asserts, Act 9:7, that they heard a voice. To this apparent contradiction Lechler does not specially refer, as he had already explained it in Exeg. note on Act 9:7. Dr. J. A. Alexander adopts the same view. He says, for instance (Act 22:8-9): There is a distinction between hearing a voice speak and hearing what it says, as nothing is more common in our public bodies than the complaint that a speaker is not heard, i.e., his words are not distinguished, though his voice may be audible and even loud. It might be said, with equal truth, that Pauls companions heard the voice, i.e., knew that it was speaking, and that they did not hear it, i.e., did not know what it said.Tr.].

Act 22:12-16. And one Ananias.Paul shows here that the work of his conversion was perfected through the agency of Ananias in such a manner, that his conversion and his call to be a witness of Christ, evidently proceeded from God, and fully harmonized with the old covenant. He describes Ananias, in Act 22:12, by specially referring to the well-known legal features of his charactera point which is not prominent in Act 9:10. His restoration to sight through the word of Ananias is very distinctly represented as a miracle, by which the divine mission of Ananias to him was attested. [ , Act 22:13. Receive thy sight, and, looked up, are imperative and indicative forms of the same Greek word, and ought to have been so translated. Ananias says: Look up, which he (Paul) could not do unless his sight had been restored, and therefore when it is added that he did immediately look up, it is the strongest way of saying, though by implication, that his eyes were opened. (Alexander).There is an analogy presented in the case of the man with the withered hand, to whom the Lord said: Stretch forth thine hand. Mat 12:10; Mat 12:13.Tr.]. In the address of Ananias, names which are directly taken from the Old Testament, are given to God and to Christ, Act 22:14, namely, . , and, ; the latter, the Just One, is employed in a peculiar, or the most perfect sense of the term. The appearance of Christ, moreover, resembles an enlarged revelation granted by God to a prophet; the ministry in the wide world (.), to which Paul is appointed, is the testimony which he is to bear as one who had alike seen with his eyes, and heard with his earsa testimony which he can, under no circumstances, refuse to bear, Act 22:14-15. Finally, the exhortation that he should receive baptism and call on Jesus, demonstrates that he did not act with precipitation, but, on the contrary, needed an urgent call, addressed to him in the name of God, before he took the decisive step. [ , both 1 aor. imper. mid.Be baptized, is not a passive, as in Act 2:38, but the middle voice, strictly meaning, baptize thyself, or rather, cause thyself to be baptized, or, suffer (some one) to baptize thee. (Alexander). The force of the middle voice would be expressed in Latin by curare, and in German by sich lassen; see Winer: Gram. N. T., 38. 3.Tr.]

Act 22:17-21. When I was come again to Jerusalem.Paul speaks in these verses of a revelation of Jesus, which is not mentioned in Act 9:26 ff.; he states the substance of that revelationthat he was to proceed to Gentiles dwelling at a great distance from Jerusalemin order to explain and justify his labors in heathen lands. For the purpose of removing the suspicion from the minds of his hearers, that he is an enemy of Israel, of the law, and of the temple (Act 21:28), he specially mentions the circumstance that this second appearance of Christ to him occurred in Jerusalem, in the temple, while he was engaged in prayer. Thus it appeared that his conversion to Christ, had neither caused him to forget Jerusalem (Psa 137:5), nor estranged him from the temple, the place of prayer. So little, indeed, was he prejudiced against his people, that when the Redeemer directed him to depart with haste from Jerusalem, because the Jews would not receive his testimony concerning Jesus, he had objected to such a course, and could not abandon the hope that the word of Christ would yet find an entrance among his people. He now repeats to his hearers, with great judgment, the answer which he returned to Jesus who appeared to him, Act 22:19-20. Its general purport was the following:That precisely his well known former hostility to the Christians, and the change which had now taken place in him, would make an impression, and open an avenue for his word to the Jews. And nothing but the repeated and peremptory command of Jesus, who had (Paul implies) determined to send him to the Gentiles, could prevail over the tenacity of his own purpose, which proceeded from a warm love to his people. [ , in Act 22:17, belongs, as in Act 22:6, to ; another construction, viz., that of the Gen. absolute, is then introduced in ; (Winer, 31. 10. obs. 2, and 44. 3, last note).Martyr (Act 22:20, Engl, version) is itself a Greek word meaning witness, and repeatedly occurring in the book before us (e.g., Act 22:15 of the present chapter), but in English having the specific sense of one who dies for his religion. The transition from the general sense of witness to the specific sense of martyr is traced by some in this verse and in Rev 2:13; Rev 11:3; Rev 17:6. Our translators would, however, have done better to retain the usual term witness, which is found in all the older English versions (Alexander).Tr.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. This defence of the apostle of the Gentiles beams with the light of Christ. While he vindicates his own course, and, apparently, speaks only of himself, he bears witness, in the most unequivocal manner, to the Redeemerto His grace towards sinners, and His heavenly glory and powerto Christs fellowship with His lowly and persecuted disciples (Act 22:7-8)and to His plan of salvation, which embraces all mankind (Act 22:15; Act 22:21). The whole exhibits a wisdom which the Spirit of Christ alone can impart; the apostle combines a thoughtful, tender, and winning love for his hearers, with the utmost candor and boldness in confessing his faith.

2. Paul, who repeats the words of Ananias, styles Jesus the Just One. In this name the old and the new covenant, the law and the Gospel, are united. The aim of the law is righteousness. While Saul was a zealot, he sought righteousness by the law, but could not find it. Israel seeks righteousness by works, but cannot attain to it. Legal righteousness was the ideal of Pharisaism. But Christ is preminently, and, indeed, exclusively, the Just [or Righteous] One [ is rendered just between thirty and forty times in the Engl. N. Test., and as often righteous.Tr.]. In Him righteousness is personally, peculiarly, and perfectly, exhibited. He is the Just One, and He justifies all who believe in His name.

3. Baptism, a means of grace. It confers purification from sins, the forgiveness of sins. The invocation of the name of Jesus essentially belongs to it, as a confession of the Redeemer and a prayer for His atoning and justifying grace. [ . . Let thyself be baptized, and (thereby) wash off thy sins. Here, too, Baptism is the medium through which the forgiveness of sins committed during the pre-Christian life is obtained. Comp. Act 2:38, and 1Co 6:11. (Meyer, ad Act 22:16).Tr.]

4. The objection which the apostle made, when he received the command of the Redeemer (Act 22:19-20) may, perhaps, have also [see Exeg. note, Act 22:17-21.Tr.] proceeded from his sincere desire to atone, at least in some degree, for his previous opposition to Christ, by confessing his transgression precisely in Jerusalem, in the very place in which he had once persecuted the disciples of Jesusby demonstrating in his conduct his entire change of mindand by serving Christ through the boldness of his words and of the testimony which he would bear for Him. But although his wish might be well meant and sincere, it was not granted. He was required to depart from Jerusalem at once, and was sent to the pagans.This fact not only shows how much higher the thoughts and ways of God are, than the thoughts and wayseven the purest and most nobleof men, but it also, specially, demonstrates that our sins are forgiven solely through Gods free grace, which we are to accept in all humility, without even remotely expecting to make an atonement or satisfaction ourselvesand that all that is expected of the sinner who has received grace, is unconditional obedience. (See the admirable exhibition of this subject in Da Costa, Apgsch., etc., . 172 ff.).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act 22:1. Men, brethren, and fathers.It is the spirit of Christian gentleness that speaks. Although Paul saw none but persecutors and murderers before him, he nevertheless regarded them as brethren and fathers, on account of the covenant and the promises of God, and hence addressed them in these terms. Such a disposition cannot be acquired by mans own power, but is wrought in him solely by the grace of Jesus, who prayed to the Father for his murderers, even in the hour of death. It is one of the characteristic features of the servants of Jesus. (Ap. Past.).It is a striking proof of the strength and support which the peace of God imparted to Paul, that, amid the storm, he could address the Jews with such composure and kindness. (Rieger.).

Act 22:2. And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence.It is often the fault of preachers themselves, when men do not listen with attention to their words. They do not express themselves intelligibly, but adopt a style which betrays affectation, or is above the comprehension of the hearers. A teacher who is sincerely desirous of edifying, will always endeavor to set forth tie truth in the plainest and most intelligible language, and to apply it to the hearts of his hearers. The Saviours mode of teaching affords a blessed and most perfect example. (Ap. Past.).None could take it amiss of the Jews that they should so highly value their language, in which God himself had spoken to the fathers. And yet, they no longer understood their own language; when God addressed them in it, their hardened hearts could no longer comprehend it.God be praised for having, since the day of Pentecost, sanctified all the languages of men, and for making himself more and more widely known through them, wherever men are willing to hear his voice. (Williger).

Act 22:3. I am a Jew, etc.Paul seems, in the whole address, to speak only of himself; but in reality he shows forth the praises of Him who had called him out of darkness into his marvellous light [1Pe 2:9]. (Rieger).Taught according to the perfect manner of the law, and zealous toward God.It is not enough to be well instructed in our religion; it is, besides, our duty to be zealous in its service; for Christ will spew the lukewarm out of His mouth [Rev 3:16]. (Starke).We see in the case of Paul, that a man may be learned, acquainted with the Scriptures, and zealous toward God, and, at the same time, be an enemy and persecutor of Christ. Human science enlightens no man; titles and offices, even in the church, of themselves afford no evidence of true fellowship with Jesus. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:4. And I persecuted this way unto the death.It was, doubtless, not without godly sorrow that Paul spoke of his former enmity against the Gospel. (Rieger).A faithful witness of Jesus will not be ashamed to confess his former sins, if he can, by that course, contribute to the honor of his Saviour, or gain the confidence and strengthen the religious hopes of humble believers. Such a confession is of special value, when it is made in the presence of men who are committing the same sins, and who may the more easily be induced by such an example to change their course. (Ap. Past.).So when Luther combated the Romish doctrine of merit acquired by works, he could appeal to his own practices of a former day; for if monkish austerity could have ever saved the soul, he would have by such means obtained salvation.Binding men and women.The chains which bound the apostle at that moment, no doubt reminded him of the time when he bound the disciples with chains. When we are afflicted, let us penitently ask ourselves, whether we did not perhaps ourselves bind the rods together, with which the Lord chastises us. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:5-6. From whom also I received letters, etc.With what accuracy Paul relates, after the lapse of so many years, all the circumstances connected with his extraordinary conversion! It shows not only that, at the time, he was fully conscious of all that occurred, but also that the grace which was then manifested, had made an indelible impression on his soul. Surely he who has passed from death unto life, can never forget what the Lord has done for him. The recollection and narration of these gracious ways of salvation, will afford pleasure to the redeemed in the mansions of heaven. (Ap. Past.).Important changes of opinion and of convictions, in matters of religion, should be founded on an honest zeal for God. But many of those who in our day change their religion, could not abide such a test; they sport with religion, as boys play with dice, and thus betray themselvesin their hearts they believe nothing! 1Ti 3:7 : (Starke).About noon.A light which could attract attention at such an hour, must indeed be regarded as one out of the common course of nature. (Williger).

Act 22:7. And I fell unto the ground.Let him who desires to hear the voice of God, fall down, and humble himself in the presence of His majesty! (Starke.)Saul, Saul, etc.God begins the work of conversion by administering a rebuke to the inner man, Rom 2:15; 2Ti 2:25. (id.).The Lord now says to Jerusalem, by the mouth of his servant: Why persecutest thou me? O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me. Mic 6:3. (Besser).

Act 22:8. Who art thou, Lord? etc.Before our conversion, we do not know Jesus, but in conversion we begin to know him. 1Jn 2:4. (Starke).

Act 22:9. And they that were with me, saw indeed the light, and were afraid.When the natural man sees a ray of the divine glory, he is alarmed, and has indeed reason to tremble, for God is a consuming fire to all them that do evil. (Starke).But they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.We learn from Act 9:7, that Pauls attendants heard a sound, but here we are informed that they did not understand it. There is a difference between hearing and understanding. Our hearers may listen to the sound of the words, but those alone who hear [and understand, Mat 13:19; Mat 13:23], the voice of the Son of God, shall live. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:10. And I said, What shall I do, Lord?Paul distinctly remembers that although he was miraculously converted, Jesus had directed him to obey the word which one of His servants would proclaim to him. The Lord awakens him in a direct and immediate manner, but nevertheless subjects him to the guidance and pastoral care of one of the least of the brethren, and conducts him simply in the ordinary way of salvation, in which others are commanded to walk. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:11. Being led by the hand.Here a certain mystery is also indicated, Isa 40:11. We are supported, on the road to heaven, by leading-strings, like children. (Starke).

Act 22:12. Ananias, a devout man according to the law.As Ananias was not only a devout man, but also, specially, held in great esteem by the Jews, he was, accordingly, well adapted to be employed as an agent by the Lord, in winning Paul, who had labored so zealously for Judaism, and in conferring a blessing on him. The Lord knows all his servants, and judges wisely respecting the work in which he can, with most advantage, employ any one among them. (Ap. Past.).When these words were uttered, the silence of the hearers became the more profound. (Besser).

Act 22:13. Brother Saul, etc.Paul cannot forget the gentleness, candor, and brotherly kindness with which Ananias came to his aid, at a time when his soul was greatly alarmed and distressed. This case animates us to pray for grace, that we may know how to speak a word in season to feeble and dispirited souls, and, with fraternal pity, to lead the sorrowing and distressed to Jesus for comfort; such is the great object and the most glorious work of the evangelical ministry. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:14. The God of our fathers hath chosen thee.Those who are to render special services to the Church, must receive their commission from heaven. (Starke).

Act 22:14-15. Know his will see that Just One be his witness unto all men.Hence it appears that before we are properly qualified to be teachers and witnesses of the truth, a twofold preparation is necessaryfirst, to acquire a thorough knowledge of the will of God, derived from His word and from personal experience; secondly, to have seen Jesus Himself by faith, and to have felt the power of His word in our own souls. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:16. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.We have here a noble testimony to the value which was assigned to holy Baptism by the pure apostolical church. It was not a mere external ceremony, but a means of grace for washing away sins, and was the first actual entrance into the church of Jesus. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:17. I prayed in the temple.The illumination and the grace imparted in a direct and immediate manner to the apostle, had not the effect of estranging him from the temple. Precisely those prayers which he offered in the temple, were crowned by the Lord with a special revelation. And thus the example of the apostle rebukes all separatists, even when appearances seem to be in their favor. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:18. Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem.A mournful state of things exists, and a heavy judgment is indicated, when the divine voice says: Hasten! Depart quickly! Hos 9:12. (Starke).

Act 22:19. And I said, Lord, they know, etc.It often occurs that faithful servants of God imagine that a special blessing would attend their labors in a particular place, rather than elsewhere. But God says: Nay, thou errest!, and sends them away from the spot where they wished to remain. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:20. And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed.As the apostle had sinned most grievously among the Jews, he now ardently desired to engage in labors that would be useful to them, and remove the offence which he had given, by serving as the instrument of the conversion of large numbers. Truly converted persons will always manifest such a zeal. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:21. And he said unto me, Depart.The counsel of God will always prevail, although men may honestly, but ignorantly, object to it. (Starke).

On the whole section, Act 22:1-21; comp. also Act 9:1 ff.The sketch which Paul gives of his own life, or, The view which a servant of God takes of the course of his life: he looks back, I. With a grateful remembrance of human benefactors, Act 22:3; II. With a penitent confession of his own errors, Act 22:4 ff.; III. With humble praise of the guidance of divine grace, Act 22:6 ff.; IV. With a distinct consciousness of the work to which his life is to be consecrated, Act 22:18 ff.Pauls confession: By the grace of God I am what I am, (1Co 15:10),illustrated in the history of his life: I. The advantages of birth and education which divine grace granted to him at the beginning, Act 22:3. II. The ways of folly and sin, from which he was subsequently rescued by divine grace, Act 22:4 ff. III. The ministry of peace and salvation, for which he was, ultimately, chosen and qualified by divine grace, Act 22:14 ff.The self-examination of a servant of God, a tribute of praise to divine grace; for, I. He possesses no merit of his own, Act 22:1-5; II. He owes all to the grace of the Lord, Act 22:6-21.The heavenly light near Damascus, illustrating our own path through life: it sheds light, I. On the dark path of sin in which we have walked; II. On the blessed path in which the grace of the Lord met us; III. On the Christian path of duty, in which the hand of the Lord guides us.Pauls ordination by Ananias, a mirror for preachers, Act 22:12-16; it exhibits, I. The necessary qualifications of the preacher on assuming his officeknowledge of the divine will, and personal experience of divine grace, Act 22:14. II. The official duties of the preacherto be a witness unto all menby words and actsof that which he has seen and heard, Act 22:15. III. The divine aid on which the preacher can confidently dependthat grace which chose him, and which sustains him as an evangelical witness, Act 22:14-16.Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, an impressive illustration of that divine wisdom which says: My thoughts are not your thoughts [Isa 55:8]: I. The thoughts of men would be adverse to his appointment; (a) his position in lifea Jew by birth, a Pharisee by education, Act 22:4; (b) his views and feelingsbefore his conversion, a zealot for the law, Act 22:3-4; after it, devoted to his people, Act 22:17 ff.; (c) the will of menthe rage of the Jews, Act 22:22; the anxiety of the brethren, Act 21:20. II. These hinderances were triumphantly overcome by the wisdom of God; (a) it chose Paul from all eternity as the apostle of the Gentiles, Act 22:10; Act 22:14; (b) it fitted him for his office by internal and external experiences, Act 22:6 ff., Act 22:17 ff.; (c) it attested his call by the noble results of his labors, Acts 9ch. 21.The Lords mode of replying to the objections of His servants, Act 22:17-21 : I. Even upright servants at times object to the commands of their Lordfrom fear, (Jonah), or from modesty (Moses, Jeremiah), or from conscientiousness (Peter, Act 10:14), or from sympathy (AbrahamSodom; PaulIsrael). II. Notwithstanding all these objections, the Lord repeats his command: Depart, and at length men praise Him, and confess: The Lord hath done all things well![Pauls address at Jerusalem, Act 22:1-21, (illustrating the prominent features of the Christians mode of replying to undeserved reproaches): I. Calmness, Act 22:1; II. Kindness of feeling, Act 22:1; Act 22:3; III. Consciousnesss of his own human infirmities, Act 22:4 : IV. Candid statement of his opinions and motives; V. Appeal to facts, Act 22:3 ff.; VI. Arguments derived from the word of God, Act 22:6 ff.; VII. Firmness in obeying the call of duty; VIII. Faith.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1]Act 22:3. [, of text. rec., before is omitted in A. B. D. E. and Cod. Sin. (which reads: ), and is dropped by Lach., Born., and Tisch.; it occurs in G. H., and is, in accordance with the opinion of Meyer, retained by Alf. See Winer: Gram. 61. 5. on the passage.Tr.]

[2]Act 22:7. [, of text. rec. in D. G.; in A. B. E. H. and Cod. Sin.; in H. The second form is adopted by Lach., Tisch., Alf., and several other editors; the third, by Scholz. See Winer, 13. 1.Here E. alone adds: — . See Exeg. note on Act 26:12-14Tr.]

[3]Act 22:9, The words , are wanting in three uncial manuscripts [A. B. H., also Cod. Sin., and Vulg. and Syr. Ver.]; three others [D. E. G.] exhibit it. They seem to have been regarded [by copyists] as superfluous, and as interfering with the narrative, and, on that account, to have been dropped; for this very reason they should be regarded as genuine, and the more so, as . . is a favorite expression of Luke. [Lach. and Tisch. reject the words, but Alf., who adopts Meyers view, retains them; de Wette also is disposed to receive them as genuine.Tr.]

[4]Act 22:12. The word . or . is entirely wanting in Cod. Alex. [A. and in Vulg.]; in E. (Lauds Cod.), [Codex Laudianus] [of text. rec.] occurs. The strongest testimony, namely, that of B. G. H. [and Cod. Sin.] is in favor of , a predicate which Luke is very apt to employ, Act 2:5; Act 8:2 [see Exeg. note on Act 8:2], and Act 2:25 of his Gospel. The latter word is accordingly preferred by Lach. and Tisch. [and Alford. Tischendorf omitted it in the edition of 1849.Tr.]

[5]Act 22:16. is better supported [by A. B. E., Cod. Sin. Vulg. (ipsius)] than , which is sustained by only the two latest uncial manuscripts.

[6]Act 22:20. a. is wanting in one manuscript of the first rank [A.], and in one of the second, but is sufficiently attested [by B. E. G. H. Cod. Sin. Vulg.] in order to be received as genuine. [It is retained by recent editors generally.Tr.]

[7]Act 22:20. b. [For , of text. rec. with G. H. (a correction to the more usual form. Alf.), Lach., Tisch. and Alf. read (), with A. B. E. and Cod. Sin.Tr.]

[8]Act 22:20. c. The words , after . [of text. rec.], are supported by only two uncial manuscripts [G. H.], and were introduced [by copyists] into the text from Act 8:1. [They are omitted in A. B. D. E. Cod. Sin. and Vulg.; and are cancelled by most of the recent editors.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

Paul addresses the Assembly, and relates the Particulars of his Conversion. He is interrupted by the Clamour of the Jews. He is again rescued by the Chief Captain, and conveyed into the Castle.

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

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you. (2) (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

I detain the Reader at the opening of Paul’s address, to remark, with what composure the Apostle delivered his discourse, with what dignity of manners! and yet more worthy our notice, that he should speak unto them in the sacred language, in which, from the first, the Lord hath spoken unto his people. How exceedingly to be desired, would it be, had our minds a suitable reverence for the original tongue, to approach as near that standard of purity the Hebrew as possible, in all our solemn seasons. And especially when we call to mind, how graciously the Lord watched over his Church of old, to keep his people from the Ashdod language of the heathen. Behold! how the very tongue of Abraham the Hebrew, and his children, commanded the reverence and attention of Paul’s enemies, while he spake to them in it, Neh 13:23-25 .

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

God Shaping Man’s Course

Act 22:14

There is one word in this passage which is of supreme importance. It is the keyword of the passage, and all the meaning of the passage depends on it. It is an unusual word in the New Testament in the original, though we are familiar with the word by which it is translated. It looks a simple word, but it is very broad, and deep and full.

‘Chosen ‘is the word. If it meant only what we are accustomed to read in it, it would mean a great deal. Here was a man who had been miraculously intercepted on his wilful way, had seen visions and heard voices which others had not seen and heard. After three days of absolute darkness one comes to him, inspired of God to come and this is the authoritative explanation which he brings of all that has happened: ‘The God of our fathers hath chosen thee. The God who called Abraham, and blessed Isaac, and multiplied Jacob, and trained and raised up Moses, hath chosen thee.’ There is not a person here whose heart would not be unspeakably thrilled if a voice should come from the unseen, a voice authoritative and absolute, saying ‘The eternal God, in whose hands all things are, in whose existence thou hast dimly, faintly believed, hath chosen thee for this or that particular task. He calls thee now, to undertake it’

I. God calls thee; requires thee; and this or that event in life the breaking down of health, the disturbance of friendship, the failure of thy plans, the hedging up of thy path is God’s way of arresting thy attention, directing thy mind to the fact of His reality and His thought of thee, and His purpose for thee. It is a wonderful fact, a fact to which we are often blind which, if we were alive to it, would greatly solemnize and dignify and sanctify life that God is always choosing and calling people, this man for that position, and that for the other: one to know the perils of outward success, another those of outward failure; one to know the bliss and pain that belong to family relationships of wife, husband, and parent, of union and separation the health and sickness, the coming and going of those dearer than life another to know the different pain of solitude and its compensating freedom for the service of others; one for the high and public place, with its excitements and burdens, another for the lowly position, with its peculiar trials and delights; one to go abroad, another to stay at home.

II. The Word means more than calling and choosing at the moment. It refers to the past as well as the present It does not mean that Paul grew mischievous to the Church, and had to be stopped. It does not mean that the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro in the earth, saw this man the product of circumstances this man of extraordinary power and enthusiasm; saw how useful he would be in the service of the kingdom, and because of what he was chose him then and there, as a Church chooses and calls one minister out of a number whom it has never seen before. It means that Saul had never been out of the sight of God. That the Divine Disposer of events had been looking for ward to that hour on the way to Damascus from before the birth of the babe into the Jewish family at Tarsus. A literal translation of the word would be, ‘The God of our fathers hath had thee in hand’ for this very thing. While the Holy Child was growing up in the home of Nazareth, this child was born in the home at Tarsus, and as truly as the Most High God had His purpose for the One, He had His purpose for the other also.

II. The great lesson coming from this example the lesson that puts so many of us to shame is that of being ready to embrace the Divine Will when it is made known to us.

Charles Brown, Light and Life, p. 9.

References. XXII. 14. H. Drummond, The Ideal Life, p. 257. XXII. 14, 15. J. J. Blunt, Plain Sermons (3rd Series), p. 103. XXII. 15, 21. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 236. XXII. 16. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons in Outline, p. 83. XXII. 17. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 359. XXII. 17, 21. Ibid. vol. viii. p. 231. XXII. 21. T. Arnold, The Interpretation of Scripture, p. 284. XXII. 23. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 222. XXII. 25. H. S. Holland, Old and New, p. 101. XXII. 27. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 426. XXII. 28. E. M. Geldart, Echoes of Truth, p. 66. J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son, p. 189. XXIII. 1. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 174. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon Sketches, p. 210. XXIII. 2. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 99. XXIII. 3. Ibid. p. 301. XXIII. 6. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. ii. p. 415; ibid. (6th Series), vol. xi. p. 40. XXIII. 8. T. F. Crosse, Sermons, p. 146. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 384; ibid. (6th Series), vol. xi. p. 444. XXIII. 11. H. S. Holland, God’s City, p. 251. H. Bailey, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 131.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Chapter 83

Prayer

Almighty God, is there not a rest provided for them that love thee a long Sabbath day without cloud and without night? Hast thou not told us that far beyond there is home-land? By these promises art thou taking us forward day by day, that we may enter into light and enjoy the warmth and the peace of eternal summer. Because of this comfort we are lifted up above all distresses; we speak of them as for the time only; we say, they come and go, and there is no stay in them; we fear them not; they are dying shadows, flying clouds, specks that vanish whilst we look upon them. We could not say this but for the promise of eternal life and endless joy service without weariness, attention unbroken to things Divine, amounting to rapture and all heavenliness of joy. This is thy gift in Christ Jesus. We are not walking from the light into darkness, but from darkness into light; wherefore we comfort one another with these words of thine: we say, “the road will not be long; another mile or two at the most, and the journey will be done; a few more years, and earth will be behind us a spot undiscernible in space.” So are we taken forward, step by step, a day at a time; feeling warmer today than yesterday, because the Sabbath life is nearer. Surely this is thy voice; surely this is the light above the brightness of the sun that makes men blind at noonday, that afterward they may receive their inner and spiritual sight. This is thy gift, O Christ! meeting every man on the road, and smiting him to the ground that there he may leave his pride and rise up a humble child led by the hand. We bless thee for all these views of things unseen. We thank thee with swelling hearts of thankfulness because of these touches of a hand that may be felt but never seen. We bless thee with hymn upon hymn yea, in multiplied psalm for this religious light that looks with holy contempt upon all the charms and vexations of time, and draws itself forward by the mighty welcomes and gospels of heaven. Help us to know what we are, what we can do, what is thy purpose concerning us; and may we with all diligence and burning love gird ourselves to our work, and be found at the last willing, obedient, active servants, waiting for one advent the Lord; and the solution of all things, the coming of the Lord. Meanwhile, we have thy Book, but how seldom have we eyes to see it. We have thy written Word, but how rarely do we pass through the iron gate into the inner spirit and the sacred liberty. This is our blame; we have not because we ask not, or because we ask amiss. O that we had hearkened unto thy statutes and walked in the way of thy commandments, and held our ex” pectant life steadily towards the rising of the sun. Then had our peace flowed like a river, and our righteousness had been as the waves of the sea, and all the hurried week of the world’s tumult would have been calmed by the peace of thine own Son. Meanwhile, we see thy providence passing before us day by day. We see that the axe is laid unto the root of the tree. Again and again we are startled by visions of righteousness and of sure and holy judgment amongst the lives of men. If we are perplexed by mystery, we are comforted by many a revelation. We see that thou art at war with the wicked man. If thou dost lift him up a little, it is to throw him down more heavily; if thou dost apparently show him favour, it is that he may the more surely know and feel the judgment of thy righteousness. We see that the righteous man is still loved of God and held fast in his right hand, educated by manifold discipline and instruction, but always being prepared for the high estate reserved in Christ Jesus for all whose hearts have lost their self-will in simple faith. We pray for one another, again and again, for our life is one daily need; our course is full of pain; we cannot do without thee one little day. Keep us, and we shall be kept; let thine hand be upon us, and we shall be as crowned kings. Regard the old and the young alike; thou canst make the old young; thou canst make the young maturer. Thou canst find for us water in the wilderness; show us the dripping of honey amongst hard rocks. The Red Sea is nothing before the rod of the Lord, and the wilderness is but the beginning of a garden when the Lord’s love and light are in our hearts. So take us every one spotted, crooked, self-spoiled only now: broken-hearted, joyous, penitent whatever our condition be lay open wide the door wider still set it open thyself, thou Loving One; and all shall enter in, and falling down at thy feet, low before the Saviour’s Cross, shall cry bitterly that they ever grieved thine heart. Amen.

Act 22:1-21

1. Brethren [Paul’s address to his kinsmen in the mother tongue] and fathers [Sanhedrists], hear ye the defence which I now make unto you [lit. “hear of me my present defence to you”].

2. And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language they were the [still ( Act 21:40 )] more quiet: and he saith,

3. I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of [the Jewish teachers sat upon an elevated chair, Vit. Svn., p. 165 f.] Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers [ i.e., Mosaically orthodox. Paul’s defence is not based upon traditions, Gal 1:14 , or Pharisaism, Php 3:5 ], being zealous [G., “a zealot”] for God, even as ye all are this day.

4. And I persecuted this way [ Act 9:2 al.] unto the death [the persecutor’s intent], binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

5. As also the high-priest [of that time: still living] doth bear me witness, and all the estate of [G. “Eldership:” probably syn. with Sanhedrim] the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus, to bring them also which were there unto Jerusalem in bonds, for to be punished.

6. And it came to pass that [Act 9:3-8 ; Act 26:13 ff.] as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light [seen on the background of noon] round about me.

7. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8. And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9. And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go unto Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11. And when I could not see for the glory of that light [In. Act 1:18 ; Psa 104:2 ; 1Ti 6:16 ], being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

12. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there,

13. Came unto me, and standing by me [sitting blind, unable to open eyelids] said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on [G. “unto”] him.

14. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed [ Act 3:20 ] thee to know his will and to see the Righteous One [ Jesus, on whom God’s righteous volition to save bases itself, Rom 3:21 , ff.; 2Co 5:21 ], and to hear a voice from his mouth.

15. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

16. And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and [symbolically] wash away thy sins, calling on His name [ 1Co 6:11 ].

17. And it came to pass that when I had returned to Jerusalem [sequel, not related at 9:26], and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance,

18. And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me.

19. And I said [Paul would have made his dbut as the “Converted Persecutor.” But Christ forbade], Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee.

20. And when the blood of Stephen, thy witness, was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him.

21. And he said to me, Depart: for I [“I,” emphatic] will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles [among Gentiles].

Personal Experience

We wonder what speech Paul will now make. Will he enter into some learned theological argument and confound his hearers by his heavenly eloquence? What will he say under circumstances partly novel, severely critical? He will surely bring to bear the pressure of his whole intellectual force; he will make this the supreme occasion of a lifetime, and will contribute to it all that he has ever learned of earthly wisdom, and all that he has ever known of heavenly or spiritual experience. We await the opening of those eloquent lips with feverish expectancy, for this is a critical hour. The audience is, in many respects, unlike any other audience the Apostle has ever addressed, and he is now in the metropolis of the land. What is his defence? He tells over again the story of his conversion, and tells nothing more. The sublimity of that act is without parallel in the Christian ministry. Here is no elaborate argument, no penetrating criticism, no show of erudition, but a simple, child-like statement of facts; the application being to this effect: “Men, brethren, and fathers, after this, what could I do?” This is the key that opens the lock; that is the answer to the problem. “I myself actually passed through these experiences, and having passed through them, what other could I do than I have done? Have I not acted under the pressure of a Divine predestination?” We wondered how the old story of the conversion was bearing the wear and tear of Apostolic life; the answer is before us. Having gone down into the city and into the wilderness, and over the sea; having been beaten and stoned and imprisoned, and having had heaped upon him all obloquy, the Apostle ends just where he began: by telling, not the story of another man, but the simple experience of his own soul. The story is just the same. Sometimes imagination plays havoc with memory; sometimes we begin to wonder if our own life is true; there comes a time when we say, “Surely we were in a trance then; that cannot be just as we once thought it was.” Imagination throws its own colours upon the simplest facts of early life, and we begin to regard those facts as part of an impalpable and mocking dream. This is particularly the case with the religious imagination; it leads us to disown our early selves; it teaches us to regard our first prayers as passionate and sentimental rather than as sober and vital. The religious imagination, when not kept under severe control, trifles with facts and makes us think that even history itself is only a coloured cloud. It is interesting, therefore, to find that Paul, after all the manifold and peculiar experience of a missionary’s life, turns up at this moment and repeats the old story exactly as it occurred in the earlier part of his life. Paul lived in his own experience; Paul placed both his feet on the rock of facts which had occurred in his own knowledge. He was not without poetic fire; he was not destitute of religious imagination; but to what height soever his head soared, he always kept his feet firmly upon the rock of things which had happened to himself. That is the perpetual vindication of Christianity. Christianity is not to be defended by mere argument, by the able use of elegant terms and subtle phrases; Christianity does not challenge the world to a battle of opinions. Christianity is an incarnation; it stands up in its own living men, and says, “This is my work. If you want me to talk with you mere opinions and views and theories, you can answer me back wisely or unwisely as you may suppose; but the controversy which I have with the world is this: produce your men and I will produce mine.” The tree is known by its fruit.

So the Apostle Paul continually told what Jesus Christ had done for him. If the Church would stand firmly to this one point, there need be no controversy. This speech of the great Apostle does not refer to something that happened once for all in one man’s life alone; this is but the specimen speech; every Christian man can make a similar speech for himself, sealed with the authority of his own consciousness and experience. That is the only sermon the world wants from any of us. Stand up and say where you were going, what you were, and what you are now. If in an unfortunate mood you refer to some other man’s case, you may be perplexed by some cross inquiry as to the order of the facts; but if you keep to your own self your own very self there is no answer, unless the world should add to the vulgarity of its rudeness this additional aggravation: that it calls you a speaker of falsehoods. It never occurred to the Apostle that he was relating anything that ought to tax the imagination of his hearers; about the whole recital there is the tone of a sober annalist, the tone of a man who is simply telling what he saw, heard, felt, and enjoyed. The recital of those occurrences he called his “defence.” The defence of Christianity is not a book but a man not an argument but a life. Christians are the defence of Christianity. Of course we shall be told about the shortcomings of Christians, their defects, their eccentricities, their sins. So be it. We may admit the impeachment in every item, and still the solid truth remains that Christians are the defence of Christianity. The taunt admits of easy and destructive retort. You tell me that London is a healthy city! Come with me to the hospitals today and let us walk upstairs, and downstairs, and along the corridors, and call in at every room in every ward, and I will show you every disease known amongst men in this climate. And yet we are told that London is a healthy city! Come with me from house to house throughout the metropolis, and in nearly every house I will find you a complaining voice someone is sick, someone feels pain. And yet they tell us that London is a healthy city! Let their hospitals confound them; and let all the invalids at home combine in one well-attested refutation of this optimistic view of London as the healthiest great city in the world. That kind of argument would not be admitted on sanitary questions; yet the very men, who would probably reject it upon the ground of a physical kind, might be tempted to use it in relation to Christians. There are sick Christians, Christian cripples, bad men in many respects, weak men in all respects, faulty men; and yet it remains true that Christians are the defence of Christianity; and even the weakest Christian may have about him that peculiar sign manual of heaven, which makes him greater than the greatest born of women outside the circle described with blood.

Here, then, is the plain line along which we must move when called upon for our defence. We must not ask our friends to contribute a library out of which we may cull the many evidences which establish the Christian argument; but, standing forward on stair-top, or in the marketplace, or in the Church, let us say, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence” then will come your own life-story. We do not need much poetic genius to dictate on the spot a hundred varying tales, each of which would be an invincible argument on the side of Christianity. “Men, brethren, and fathers,” says some poor old mother in the Church, “hear ye my defence. I was left in difficulty and trouble and sorrow: I knew not where to turn: all heaven was a cloud, all the earth was a swamp; I sat down and felt the pain of utter helplessness, when suddenly I heard a voice saying unto me, ‘Pray to thy Father in heaven.’ I looked and saw no man; and whilst I was looking the voice said again, ‘Pray to thy Father in heaven.’ I never had prayed just in the right way; but, at that moment, my heart dissolved in softness, and my eye brightened with hope, and I fell down, and, crying unto heaven, asked the Lord to show me what he would have me to do. Suddenly there was a great light around me, and a hand took hold of mine, and ever since that day I have felt that I am not an orphan, or a lost thing, or a forsaken life, but under shepherdly and fatherly superintendence; I feel that the very hairs of my head are all numbered.” Sweet old mother! sit down; the philosophers can never answer that; bless thee! that is a speech to which there is no reply. Have you no tale to tell about the dark days, the friendless days; the sudden suggestion that stirred the mind; the inspiration like a flash of light at midnight; the key you found in the darkness when you put your hand out which has unlocked every gate and every door ever since? Stand up and tell your tale. Let me not hear your opinions and your views and conjectures and speculations keep them to yourself; but when we call for your defence read out of the pages of your heart. Every man has his own defence, his own particular vision or view of -God. What we want to hear from each man is what he himself knows. Keep to facts they are the noblest poetry; keep to facts they are the blossoms that no cold wind can blow down, but must mature into luscious and nutritious fruit. Herein is the strength of some of us; herein is the secret of our ardent preaching. Were we to preach what we have read, were we to preach from the purely intellectual and argumentative point, we are keen enough in spiritual hearing to detect noises in the air, challenging us at a thousand points; but standing back in our own selfhood, we see it all, and so complete is our consciousness and experience that it never occurs to us any man can doubt our word. This will be the case with Paul. When he argued about the resurrection, he said with infinite simplicity, “If it were not so, we ourselves would be found liars before God, and that is impossible.” The sweet truthfulness, the simple, beautiful self conviction of soul in that testimony! We need no certificate after that; it comes so freshly, in a certain sense so naively, and with such a heavenliness of simplicity as to be in itself a very powerful argument. It is possible to account for the greatest changes in life; it is not always possible to complete an argument; it is not always possible to put into words the feelings which have made us what we are. There are silent defences; there are defences which only speak as the light speaks, and that is by wordless shining; nevertheless, the man himself knows in his own heart the truth of what he would say if words were equal to the occasion. If you have any doubt in your own heart, it must be about yourself and not about the truth. Why do men fly upon the truth, as if that were to blame, instead of flying upon their own incomplete experience, and saying, “The fault is in me”? If you are not a converted man a man whose soul has been turned right round then blame your own want of conversion, and not the truth which you nominally profess. A converted man is one who is completely turned right round in every act, motive, impulse, and purpose; a converted man is as one who was travelling east, but is now marching straight towards the west. You could tell what turned you round it was a death, a grief, a reading of the Book, a sermon, a singular providence, the hearing of a hymn, the touch of a child, the feeling of an inward agony. That is your defence; it is not mine; it is not another man’s, probably, but it is yours, just as your heart is yours, and your hand. Your heart and hand have something in common with every other human heart and hand, yet there is a specialty that makes each yours and no other man’s. It is so in Christian experience. Every man has his own view of God, his own conception of the Cross, his own speechless explanation of the inexplicable mystery of the Atonement of Christ. We want more personal experience in the Church. Herein the idea of some Christian communions is a sound conception of Christian fellowship and communion, namely: that we should meet one another periodically, and audibly say what God has done for the soul. The practice may easily be abused; it is not our business to show how Christian privileges may be degraded, but how they may be turned to the highest advantage; and, judging by apostolic history and precedent, nothing is so convincing, so satisfactory, as for the soul to tell its own story, in its own words, and when the soul does that, the best of all sermons will be preached. We can say, “We were as sheep going astray, but now we are returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.” Each can say, who has known Christ’s ministry in the soul, “Once I was blind; now I see.” Each can say, “I have altered my standard of judgment, my whole estimate of things; the world used to be a great place to me, now I can hardly see it: my eyes are filled with another glory a glory that excelleth; and now when I look down upon the earth, I see in it nothing but types, shadows, symbols of better things; once I thought time long, now it is only a short hot breath; once I thought life a daily pain, now it is a daily expectation. Death is abolished. O death! O death! grim death where is thy sting, thou defeated foe, thou overthrown one?” What wrought this? “It was wrought thus: I was going from Jerusalem to Damascus, and at noonday, in a light which put out the sun, Jesus of Nazareth met me, talked to me, spoke to my very soul; and if any man were to deny that, he would be a liar, not I. I know it; it is my life’s life; it is the fact which is the keystone of my life’s bridge; it is the stone that gives unity to the present and hope for the future. Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence! My defence is not an argument which you can answer, but a fact to which I can swear.”

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXIX

PAUL IN THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES AT JERUSALEM

AND HIS SPEECH ON THE STAIRWAY

Act 21:37-23:30 .

The scripture for this chapter is Acts 22-23, and the general theme for the rest of the book of Acts is, “Paul in the hands of his enemies and under the protecting care of his Lord.” The distinct forces to be considered) each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem, are as follows: (1) The believing Jews or Christians at Jerusalem; (2) the unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem, coming in from the dispersion to the feasts; (3) Lysias, the representative of the Roman military government in Jerusalem; (4) Paul’s kinsman; (5) Paul himself; (6) Paul’s Lord.

The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem forced upon Paul the observance of a custom that he didn’t consider binding, but he was willing for expediency’s sake to observe it, and thus put him in the Temple where he would be in full view of the millions of Jews gathered in Jerusalem. After putting him in that position and seeing that it was the cause of an assault upon his life by the unbelieving Jews, and of his arrest by the Romans, there is no record then or later of their coming in to testify in Paul’s behalf or bringing any influence whatever to bear to enable him to escape from the difficulty. Action moved so fast in the assault on him, and in the arrest and his being sent away from Jerusalem, that you might excuse their silence there, but when they knew he was taken to Caesarea, although some time elapsed before his trial there, and the enemies had ample notice and time to get there to testify against him, they sent no representatives.

The impression made on my mind is that they acted in an ungrateful, “scaly” sort of way. As he had come there to bring them a big collection that had taken him four years to gather together, and for their benefit, and as they had specifically endorsed his work among the Gentiles, and as they knew he was in that Temple at their instance, and also knew that the charge was false that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts, it is to me an amazing thing that they did nothing to help him.

As was shown in the former chapter, the whole unbelieving Jewish population, whether at Jerusalem or in the lands of the dispersion, was a seething, boiling pot, and feeling that the last thing that they had to hold to was this Temple and Moses, they were jealous to madness of anything that reflected upon the sanctity of that Temple or upon the customs of Moses. Of all men living they hated Paul most, because they regarded him as an apostate from the Jewish faith. They recognized him in the Temple, and couldn’t have touched him except upon one ground, and that was, that he had introduced into the sacred precincts a Gentile. The Romans did not allow the Jews generally to have jurisdiction over life and death, but out of deference to their intense jealousy to guard the sacred precincts of the Temple from intrusion, the Romans did allow them to kill any man found in those sacred precincts that was not a Jew.

That enables you to understand why they brought the accusation against him that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts. If they could do that they could kill him right there under the eyes of the Roman guard, and escape Roman prosecution. Their hate was uniform in its persistence, and multiform in its method. They manifested their intense rancor, not only by the manner in which the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth when he appeared before the Sanhedrin, but because a number of avowed assassins, forty in number, came and apprised them of what they wanted to do, viz.: to kill Paul, and asked the Sanhedrin to enter into the plot this far, that it would urge that Paul be brought before the Sanhedrin again as if to gain further information. When they agreed to that they became guilty of the whole diabolical conspiracy.

Let us consider the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem. The procurator, Felix, was at Caesarea, and hence Lysias, the chiliarch, had command of all the Roman forces in Jerusalem, and was responsible on this point, that he should keep down all tumult. So that he was in the full discharge of his duty when he witnessed a tumult right under the Tower of Antonio and sent his soldiers to disperse that crowd, and found out what was the matter. He was in the full discharge of his duty when he saw all of them holding the one whom the Jews were trying to kill, for he supposed that it must be that Egyptian who had been the cause of such a slaughter of the Jews. He was following the Roman custom when, not being able to understand what the grievance was from what the crowd was shouting all around him, he ordered Paul to be examined by torture. It was a very cruel proceeding, but the Roman law allowed him to practice it always; that is, they stretched a man out with thongs, and put him to the torture to make him tell what was the cause of the assault against him. Lysias wanted to know what it was, and he couldn’t gather from what the Jews said; so he wanted to force the person accused to state the cause. “What devilment have you been into that makes the people want to kill you?” But when Paul avowed his Roman citizenship, Lysias followed the law in instantly countermanding the order to put him to the torture. And Lysias followed the Roman custom of inquiring into a case before he judged of the case, in having Paul brought before the Sanhedrin in order that in that open court he might ascertain what the gist of the matter was. And he recognized at a glance what it was. Then when a vow was made to kill Paul, he showed himself to be able in tactics and in administrative capacity to put Paul beyond the power of assassination, by sending him to his chief, the procurator at Caesarea. No man can read the action of Lysias in this whole matter without receiving a very favorable impression of this Roman officer.

But Paul had some kinsfolk there, and as there were forty men who had conspired to assassinate Paul, and as they carried their plot to the whole Sanhedrin (such a secret as that couldn’t be kept), so Paul’s kinsfolk found out about it, and the nephew came with a warning. It isn’t said that he was a Christian. That is probable, yet it is strange that James and the elders couldn’t find out anything and couldn’t offer any service, but this boy did find out, and took a very active and noble part.

So far as Paul is concerned, he is entirely innocent. He had done nothing to justify an assault upon him in the Temple. It was an outrageous thing against the Temple for any violent man to come into it and lay hold upon a man who was carrying out the Temple regulations. And when he was rescued by the Romans, we see that he didn’t lose his self-possession. The crowd came so near killing him that the soldiers had to pick him up and rush with him in their arms to get up that stairway out of danger, but before his feet hit the ground he wanted to say something. He wasn’t going to allow his life to be disposed of, and the cause to be put in jeopardy, without doing all he could. So he says to Lysias, “May I speak to you?” addressing him in Greek. “Why, do you speak Greek?” says Lysias, “Is supposed you to be that Egyptian.” “No,” says Paul, “I am a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, no mean city.” “Well,” answers Lysias, “What do you want?” “Why, I want to speak to that mob there.” Lysias is very anxious to find out all the facts he can, and he permits it. So Paul stands there on the stairway and delivers that inimitable address that we will consider later, and as Paul spoke in Hebrew, Lysias couldn’t get any light on the subject, and when he proposes to bring Paul before the court to torture him, Paul still has his wits about him and says, “I am a Roman. You can’t torture me.” Then when Paul is brought before the council, he boldly affirms in his first sentence that from his youth up he had lived conscientiously, no matter which side he was on; that he thought he was doing God’s service when he did it.

When the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth, Paul’s anger flashed out: “God will smite thee, thou whited wall! You attempt to try me by the law, and contrary to the law command me to be smitten in the mouth?” But when somebody said, “You are reviling the high priest,” quick as a flash he turned, saying, “Brethren, I knew not that he was the high priest. I remember the law says that there should be reverence toward rulers.” He possessed quick self-control, and then when he saw there was no chance to get a verdict before that crowd, with his will as quick as lightning, recognizing Pharisees and Sadducees there, he adopted the old Latin proverb, “Divide your enemies in order to conquer them,” and instantly avows that he is under charge on account of his belief in the resurrection of the dead.

The Pharisees, of course, sided with Paul on that, and the Sadducees against him, and they turned to fighting each other, and Paul escaped. It shows the most nimble wit in hazard. And then when his nephew brings him the information about the plot you see how his wisdom is running all the while. He says, “You go show these facts to Lysias.” Throughout the whole proceeding he commends himself to us in not getting scared, and in not losing his head; in seizing every opportunity for self-defense and for setting forth the cause. That is Paul’s part.

The tact of Paul’s speech on the stairway is almost infinite:

1. In that he spoke it in Hebrew. If anything in the world would appeal to that crowd it was to hear their own mother tongue. When such a great multitude of the Jews had lost the power to speak Hebrew, or even to read it, it was an instant appeal to them that this man would speak to them in the mother tongue.

2. While everything he said had been said before, yet it is the way in which he makes what he says meet that case. He applies it to this point: First, “I was once Just such a zealot as you are about your law. Your high priest knows it. You all know that I went to any length to put down Christianity. But, brethren, I met the Lord. The light in which I met him was so bright it blinded me. By the power of God I am a changed man. There has been an internal experience to justify my change from one crowd to another crowd, and the recognition of my change was by as devout a Jew as you are one Ananias and the Lord met him and sent him to authenticate what had been done. And to show that my heart is toward you as it ever has been, when I was in Jerusalem at the time of the conference here in the church I went to the Temple, and there the same Lord that converted me and that impressed Ananias to baptize me, told me to go to the Gentiles. You have nothing against me beyond my going to the Gentiles, and yet I have gone in obedience to your Messiah gone after an experience of conversion to prove to me that my former zeal against the church was wrong, and authenticated by a Jew just as zealous as you are.” It was impossible for an orator to state a case with any greater simplicity and with any more tactfulness. But when he said “Gentiles,” why that was like waving a red flag before a mad bull. Then they went to howling at once.

Here we have the expression, “Wash away thy sins.” We have already considered that in Act 2:38 , but I will restate it now, since here Paul is commanded to wash away his sins. Since he is commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, that proves that it wasn’t real cleansing from sin, but a figurative one, because God alone can remit sin, and there is no virtue in baptism to take it away. Therefore, what is meant is that Paul himself, not God, could symbolically wash away his sins in baptism. Baptism could symbolize the cleansing from sin, though it couldn’t actually remove it.

Lysias ordered Paul’s examination by torture in order to find out what the grievance of the Jews was against this man, and Paul escaped it, as I have already shown, by claiming to be a Roman citizen; and that leads to the next expedient of Lysias. As a Roman he is bound to find out in some way what the grievance is, so the next expedient is to order the Sanhedrin to come together, and he said, “You are not to mob this man. He is my prisoner, and I want to know what is against him,” and the expedient was very successful from his point of view. It demonstrated to him that there were no charges against Paul that could come under the jurisdiction of a Roman. So he won out on this expedient. He saw that they didn’t agree themselves, and that it was only a matter upon which Pharisees and Sadducees differed a matter of their own law and he never had any doubt about the case any more.

Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest,” is hard to explain. I will give what some commentators have said, viz.:

First, that Ananias had usurped the office of high priest during a vacancy, and therefore was not recognized by Paul. There is no evidence that that office was vacant.

Second, that Paul, having been long absent, was really unacquainted with the person of the high priest. That cuts no figure, because Paul would recognize the man that was wearing the full official dress of the priest, as the priest.

Third, that the words are ironical: “I couldn’t be supposed to know that you, a man that would command me to be smitten in the mouth as you did, was high priest.”

Fourth, that Paul on account of his nearsightedness, his imperfect sight, couldn’t discern that dress. That is Farrar’s explanation, and it is a very plausible one, too.

Fifth, that “I wist not, brethren,” means, “I didn’t give it a thought; I just spoke fast, and when he commanded me to be smitten in the mouth I spoke without giving a thought to the fact that the one who said it was high priest.” That is not very plausible.

Of all these explanations the most plausible one to me is Farrar’s. A near-sighted man may come right into a room and unless he comes right up close to a person he will not recognize him.

[I most heartily agree here with Canon Farrar and Dr. Carroll on their explanation of Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest. It is almost tragical that there is so little allowance made for the man who has an infirmity of vision. I have suffered for nearly thirty years with what I suppose to be the same eye trouble that so harassed and afflicted Paul. Many times I do not recognize my best friends, even when they are but a few feet away. It has been one of the greatest of all my crosses, and I am sure that in this incident Paul did not have sufficient vision with which to recognize the high priest, and that this is a full explanation of the matter. Editor.]

Before this, Paul had set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers in Rom 13:1-7 : “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shall have praise from the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

The explanation of the three classes of Paul’s military escort is that the Roman legion was divided. The main dependence of the Roman legion was what is called the heavy-armed soldiers. They carried the shields and that deadly short sword. They carried also an immensely long lance. When they drove that lance into the ground and drew on their short swords, they turned the battle. Right ahead of them was a line of spearmen, that before they got in touch with the enemy could throw their javelins, and fall back behind the heavy part. The third part was the light troops cavalry. Every legion had those three classes of soldiers, so when Lysias sent a guard of 200 soldiers, tremendously heavily armed troops, 200 spearmen, light armed troops, and 70 cavalrymen, that made a body that could adapt itself to any kind of an enemy that would attack them on the way and it was exceedingly formidable, for Lysias recognized the power of the malice of the Jews.

A very favorable impression is made on the mind by this account. The world never saw such military discipline as the Romans had. Whenever they camped for just one night they would do work enough to build a town. They would dig a ditch and throw up a wall around their camp. They knew exactly where to put the baggage wagons. Every cavalryman knew where his place was. Every spearman knew where his place was. It was a citadel of fortifications, if they just camped one night, and over all Europe, where the Romans marched, could be seen their camps at night. Frederick the Great came near having a military discipline equal to the Romans. As to the administration of justice, we are compelled to bow before it. Take this man Lysias, or Gallic, or any other case that came up, and how careful they are! They would say, “It is not our custom to try a man until we hear him. We will hear both sides of it. We want to know the facts, and if what he is accused of doesn’t come under the Roman jurisdiction, we dismiss the case.” And the only time when there is a “slip-up” in Roman justice is where the man appointed to power, like Pilate or like that slave, Felix, to whom we will come later, has itching palms or fears, then justice goes awry. The Roman code, together with the code of Moses, is the foundation of the law that rules the civilized world today. The Romans had good roads. They had good discipline. They had fine administration of justice. A “slip-up” would come only in some special cases, as I have mentioned.

There are three styles in this section the inimitable historical prose style of Luke, the epistolary style of Lysias, and the oratorical style of Paul in making a speech. When I read it over I can feel the touch of each one of them as I come to it.

When a school boy I read the twenty-seven novels of Walter Scott, and I had read quite a number of his historical books before I came to his epistolatory ones, and I was perfectly delighted when I came to Gauntlet, a story in the form of letters written from one to another. Scott enhanced the literary excellence of his stories by changing the style.

Lysias’ letter is a genuine letter. Paul’s speech is a great speech. Luke is a true historian. There is nothing stilted. There is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias. He knows how to write: “Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor, Felix, greeting: This man was seized of the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers, and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause whereof they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accusers also, to speak against him before thee.”

So the one touch of human nature in that letter is this: “This man was taken of the Jews and would have been killed of them: Then I came with an army and rescued him.” Now, he didn’t know that Paul was a Roman when he first interfered. He found that out afterward, but as he stated it, it certainly put him in a more favorable light to make Felix think that he understood it that way that be was endeavoring to take care of the Roman people. Every man is the hero of the story he tells.

I knew a man to run into our camps on the frontier once, gasping for breath and his tongue out, telling about the Indians only two miles off, and how they had crowded him, bow he had saved his horses, and how he had come across to give information to the camp (it was all made up to scare us) and John Meriwether says, “I was a fool to believe you at first, but I was wise in believing you afterwards, because there was such a natural twang in the way you made yourself the hero, that I thought you were telling the truth.”

QUESTIONS 1. What the scripture for this chapter, and the general theme for all the remainder of Acts?

2. What distinct forces must be considered, each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem?

3. State the case from the viewpoint of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, and your judgment of their performance.

4. What is the case of the unbelieving Jews there?

5. What is the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem?

6. What is the case of Paul’s kinsman?

7. What is the case of Paul himself?

8. Analyze Paul’s speech on the stairway, and give the substance of this speech in paraphrase.

9. What the explanation and force of “wash away thy sins”?

10. Why did Lysias order Paul’s examination by torture, and how did he escape?

11. What is the next expedient of Lysias, and what the result?

12. What is the explanation of Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest”? What the remarks on this incident of the editor of this INTERPRETATION?

13. Where before had Paul set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers and what is the substance of his statement?

14. How do you explain the three classes of Paul’s military escort?

15. What impression is made on the mind by this account of Roman military discipline and administration of justice?

16 When was there injustice practiced under the Roman law, and what illustrations cited?

17 What is the literary excellence of this section?

18. What is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias? Illustrate.

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

1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

Ver. 1. Men, brethren, and fathers ] They that spake for themselves before the Areopagites in Athens, were required to do it , without passions or prefaces, not so here.

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

1. ] This speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his conversion to Christianity, but this time most skilfully arranged and adapted (within legitimate limits) to avoid offence and conciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will appear as we go on. See an enquiry into its diction and rendering into Greek, in the Prolegg. ii. 17 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 22:1 . . ., cf. Act 7:2 . So St. Stephen had addressed a similar assembly, in which had been Saul of Tarsus, who was now charged with a like offence as had been laid to the charge of the first Martyr. Those whom he addressed were his brethren according to the flesh, and his fathers, as the representatives of his nation, whether as Sanhedrists, or priests, or Rabbis. The mode of address was quite natural, since St. Paul’s object was conciliatory: , , Chrys., Hom. , xlvii. : “hear from me,” cf. Joh 12:47 , a double genitive of the person and thing, as in classical Greek, or “hear my defence,” cf. 2Ti 4:16 . : five times in St. Paul’s Epistles, once elsewhere in Act 25:16 , in a strictly legal sense ( cf. 1Pe 3:15 ). Used with the verb of defending oneself against a charge, Wis 6:10 , Xen., Mem. , iv., 8, 5. In 2Ma 13:26 the verb is also used of Lysias ascending the rostrum and addressing the people in defence.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts Chapter 22

In the earlier part of this Book we had the history of the apostle’s conversion in its historical order, bearing profoundly upon the progress of the gospel and the revelation of Christian truth. Here we have the account of it as a part of his defence before the people of Israel. It has therefore a specific object, marked by the use of the Hebrew language, which accounts for its other peculiarities. Discrepancy there is really none, any more than in other parts of scripture. The appearance of it is due solely to the difference of design, which here is most obvious, as it undeniably is later in the Book. In Act 26 we have a short account modified by the fact that it was addressed to the king, Herod Agrippa the younger, as well as to the Roman governor. Whatever peculiarities have been observed, they are due to the same cause. The same principle in fact applies to the treatment of every object among men of intelligence. Scripture only adopts the same rule, but in a perfection to which men are unequal. Our place as believers is to learn by that which offends incredulity against all reason.

‘Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence that I now make unto you (and when they heard that he spake to them in the Hebrew tongue, they were the more quiet, and he saith), I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to strictness of the law of the fathers, being zealous for God, even as all ye are to-day. And I persecuted this Way unto death, binding and delivering unto prisons both men and women, as also the high priest beareth me witness, and all the elderhood, from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and proceeded unto Damascus to bring those also that were there, bound to Jerusalem that they might be punished’ (vers. 1-5).

There was a providential training in the apostle’s case as in others, but strikingly manifest in him who was a Jew, not a Gentile proselyte. He was born in Tarsus, a renowned centre of letters and philosophy at that day. But he was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of the most celebrated Rabbi of his day. Yet if Gamaliel was learned and strict as an orthodox Pharisee, we have already had remarkable proof, quite apart from the apostle, of his singular moderation, when the Sadducees began to persecute the faith. It is not often erudite men are equally known for prudence, still less for the wisdom which brought in God, not formally, but with conscience; and God used it completely to turn away the council from their unbelieving and sanguinary thoughts (Act 5:34-40 ). At Gamaliel’s feet was he brought up who was to be the Holy Ghost’s witness to the grace of God in our Lord Jesus as no other man was since the world began.

His early training in Jerusalem would have conveyed no such presentiment to mortal eyes: he was instructed according to the strictness of the law of the fathers. If the Pharisees of Jerusalem were zealous beyond all others, he was yet more so; but in truth when faith came, he could all the better realize the complete change from law to grace. Those who never pierced below the surface of the one fail to appreciate the other; they are apt to mingle the two – the great bane of Christianity, whence law is no more law, and grace is no more grace.

Law is the demand of human righteousness. Grace has now revealed God’s righteousness, and this only is what the apostle designates the righteousness which is of faith; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. It is not a question of man’s effort, still less of his performance. He is not called to ascend to heaven any more than to descend into the abyss. It was Christ Who came down. even as Christ risen from the dead is gone up, and we become God’s righteousness in Him. Salvation is wholly of Christ, it is what God loves to do – cannot but do consistently with His character in virtue of the work of Christ. ‘The word, therefore, is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart’, not the word that man prepares for God, but the word which God sends to be preached: ‘If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ (Rom 10:8-10 ). Thus has God indeed dealt, and can afford to deal, with sinners. It is His grace, but it is also His righteousness.

Now the more Saul when quickened studied the law, and entered into its righteous inexorable claims on man, the more were his eyes opened to the impossibility of salvation under law. It was weak through the flesh, and must be bondage, bitter hopelessness could only result when conscience became enlightened. For salvation is altogether a question for God Who, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Thus only could there be salvation. The law was able to do nothing but condemn the sinner. The gospel proclaims sin condemned, root and fruit, and the believer saved and set free to walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It was exactly therefore such a zealot of law, who, when his heart was opened by grace, could to the full see and appreciate the deliverance of the gospel. The same principle applies even now, though there is no doubt an incalculable distance between the apostle and other saints howsoever blest in our day or any other. Still the men who most enjoy and are best fitted to set forth the gospel, are often those who, in the days of their ignorance were deeply attached to law and ordinances, which necessarily gender bondage where there is an exercised conscience.

And this must have told powerfully upon the Jews who weighed the apostle’s address. The apostle had never been a careless light-hearted Israelite! as his training was most strict, so his personal zeal was thorough. Indeed he had given the fullest proof, for he persecuted this Way unto death. None like Saul of Tarsus, who was so active in binding and delivering into prisons both men and women! He was just a sample in the highest degree of those that have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Who therefore could speak like him from personal experience to men ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own? So much the more did he now subject himself to the righteousness of God.

Nor could the high priest himself ignore the fact, but rather bear witness, and all the elderhood too; for they are reminded that he also received letters to the brethren, i.e., the Jews elsewhere, and journeyed to Damascus to bring also those that were there to Jerusalem in bonds in order to be punished. He who was to go out to all the world with the gospel, could not of old rest in his legal zeal within the bounds of Jerusalem or Judea.

The apostle now recounts his own marvellous conversion; and as it was addressed to Jews, it is presented in a way suited to disarm their prejudices, if this were possible.

‘And it came to pass, as I was journeying and drawing near to Damascus, that about midday there suddenly shone out of heaven a great light round about me, and I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And He said unto me, I am Jesus, the Nazarene, Whom thou persecutest. Now they that were with me beheld the light1 but did not hear the voice of Him that was speaking to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Rise up, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which it hath been appointed for thee to do’ (vers. 6-10).

1 Text. Rec. adds on large authority of MSS. et al., , ‘and they were affrighted’, but ABH, several cursives, and the best Versions leave the words out.

Thus the intimation here is that it was ‘about midday’, still more precisely than we were told in Act 9:3 . This makes the vision far more striking. It was not a trance, but an open fact. The light which shone round about him out of heaven transcended the sun at midday, in the presence of men who were travelling with him. Deception was impossible. As far as we know, he, and he only, was converted thereby. The voice addressed no. other at that time; and here it is particularly said that the rest heard not the voice of Him that was speaking to him. The same historian, who gives this as the distinct statement of the apostle, had himself told us that his fellow-travellers stood speechless hearing the voice but beholding no one. This to a casual reader looks like a discrepancy, but a reader must be careless indeed, or bent on evil, who does not perceive that the two statements are altogether in harmony beneath the surface. In Act 9 we learn that his companions heard a sound, and no more; and in the present chapter2 we learn that he alone heard the voice of Him that spoke to him. To the others it was inarticulate; to him it was not only intelligible, but the turning point of a life beyond all others rich in testimony to His grace Who spoke to him.

2 In Act 9 ‘sound’ or ‘voice’ is in the genitive, and merely partitive in Act 22 it is the accusative which has the largest bearing on the object and is not partitive.

For the time was now fully come for a new step in God’s ways. The heavenly glory of Christ was to be seen by a chosen witness called by Him in sovereign mercy from on high, the persecutor from the midst of his religiously rebellious career. It is grace no doubt in every case where the soul is brought from darkness into the marvellous light of God. But here all the truth shines with the utmost brilliancy. Stephen dosed his testimony with the sight of Jesus in the glory of God. Saul begins his testimony for Jesus with Him seen in the same glory. It reminds one somewhat of the two prophets of old, one of whom ended his course with being taken up to, heaven, whilst the other commenced it from that glorious sight which gave him thenceforth such a mighty impulse. It was none the less remarkable in the present case, because Saul had been privy to the death of Stephen, and had kept the clothes of the false witnesses who stoned him whose spirit went up to the Lord Whose glory he had just seen and testified.

And if a brief interval elapsed after Stephen’s death, it was filled up by Saul still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. Nevertheless the light out of heaven suddenly shone out round about him now. Smitten to the earth, he heard the voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?’ Embittered though he was with tradition and prejudice, he could not but ask with astonishment, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ No man was ever more assured that he was rendering service to God in putting out of the synagogue, or even in killing, the disciples. He had a good conscience, according to the law, in the zeal that persecuted the church (Phi 3:6 ). As yet he knew neither the Father nor the Son. The True Light had never entered his soul. But now the light which shone round about him was but the harbinger of a better glory invisible to human eyes, ‘the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’. His companions saw the outward brightness, they did not behold that which none can see, unless they are, by the power of God, brought out of darkness into it.

To his amazement he learned that He Who spoke, Whom he could not but acknowledge to be the Lord of all, was the very Jesus Whom he was persecuting. For thus He was known in the persons of His own: Christ and the church are one. Immense discovery! and so much the more in circumstances so unparalleled. The erstwhile enemy, broken down and henceforth obedient to the heavenly vision, has Christ in glory, God’s Son, revealed, not to him only, but in him. See Gal 1:16 . He is life, and the Christian is one with Him. If it was true of the disciples whom he persecuted, it was no less true of their persecutor, now himself a disciple. ‘He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.’ When we see the Lord at His coming again, we shall be like Him, even in body changed into the same image. If we are being transformed now, even as by the Lord the Spirit, we shall be conformed then to the Lord and by the Lord; for we shall see Him as He is (2Co 3:18 ; 1Jn 3:3 ).

These great principles were all involved in the apostle’s vision, though of course it is not meant that they were all unveiled to his spirit at the moment. But in due time no one knew better than he, nor so well; though these truths were thus conveyed, and in the most powerful way, in that great fact, incalculable in its bearing on the church, and even for the world. For who of all men ever made good a commission so unlimited as the apostle’s? It was felt and acknowledged by the twelve that he was the apostle of the uncircumcision as truly as they of the circumcision. This in no way precluded their seeking the good of the Gentiles; still less did it hinder Paul from labours abundant among the Jews, as every place, we may say, testified where there were Jews. But it did not mark the characteristic breadth of his mission. He might seek to build up the church in entire and heavenly separation from the world; but it was his beyond any man to fulfil the word of his Master, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all the creation.’

What an appeal, too, his own account of his conversion was to the crowd of Jews that were then listening! None could deny the facts; the high priest could not but bear witness, all the elderhood of Israel in Jerusalem would have gladly contradicted if they could. The letters he received to his Jewish brethren could not be gainsaid, any more than his own bitter persecution of the Christian Way unto death, as well as prison. The companions of his journey to Damascus, why were they silent? If they heard not the words of Jesus, they were not deaf to the preternatural sound, and they did see the light above the brightness of the sun shine round about them all.

But all wonders fail to convert the heart to God. It is the voice of Christ that quickens the dead, and now is the hour for quickening souls; as by and by there will come another hour, when the voice of the Son shall summon from the grave those that have done good to a resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to a resurrection of judgment, which last act of Christ solemnly closes the history of this world. But sovereign grace is now awakening the souls that hear the word of the Lord; and as this was in the most extraordinary manner manifested to Saul of Tarsus, so was he called in the highest degree to be a minister of God’s sovereign grace, and of Christ’s heavenly glory. ‘And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lords aid unto me, Rise up, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which it hath been appointed thee to do.’

Here again was a singular break with all the apostolic antecedents. The Lord commanded no return to Jerusalem. Saul must enter Damascus and there, not through a previous apostle, still less the apostolic college, but through a disciple set in no high position, learn what it had been appointed for him to do. So does grace reign: have we really learnt this?

We have already seen in commenting on Act 9 what an important event took place that day: a distinct and fresh step in the ways of God for bringing out the church (already formed, it is true) into manifestation by his ministry who was then converted so extraordinarily that divines treat it as one of the standing and most striking evidences of the truth of Christianity.

Still all was not yet done even as regards Saul of Tarsus, the basis was laid, but no more. The blindness physically which had come upon him was to be taken away; and assuredly very much more light spiritually was yet to shine into his soul; but the principle that was to be fully developed in due time was already involved in the character of the word of the Lord to him. ‘And as I could not see for the glory of the light, being led by the hand of those that were with me, I came into Damascus; and one Ananias, a pious man according to the law, borne witness to by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by said to me, Brother Saul receive thy sight, and in the very hour I looked upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know His will and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from His mouth. For thou shalt be for Him to all men a witness of what thou hast seen and heard. And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and get baptized, and have thy sins washed away, calling on His1 name’ (vers. 11-16).

1 So the most ancient MSS. and Versions, but HLP and most read ‘of the Lord,’ as in the Text. Rec.

As Paul was to be, beyond all others, a witness of Christ to the Gentiles so God took special care to remove from every fair upright man all suspicion of collusion on the part of any Jew. Outwardly the vision of glory was unmistakable before many witnesses. What passed between the Lord and His servant was necessarily confined to Saul alone of the company. But divine wisdom apprised Ananias of what had happened, independently of Saul and of every other on earth. We are not told here of his fasting for three days and nights, but the fact was patent that by the hand of those that were with him he had to be led into Damascus. That blindness furnished occasion for a fresh display of divine power. The channel of it was a simple disciple, yet was he a devout man according to the law, and well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there. Unsought, he came; and standing by him who was blind he said, ‘Brother Saul, receive thy sight’, and the word was with power: Paul received his sight and looked upon him. In Act 9 we hear of the vision that Saul had preparing for the visit of Ananias, as the same chapter lets us know that Ananias had a vision in which the Lord sent him, by no means willing, without delay to Saul. For it was well known at Damascus, as well as in Jerusalem, what a zealous persecutor of the church had been the learned Jew of Tarsus – now a man of prayer.

Here, again, we have the beautiful fruit of confidence in the word of the Lord. ‘Brother Saul’ – how refreshing it must have been to the heart of the converted zealot! The key to what is here stated, and to what is omitted, is the design: the apostle is recounting his conversion to the Jews. ‘The God of our fathers’ appears here alone. It was He, as Ananias said, and not another, Who had appointed him to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice out of His mouth. It is much more than the simple fact that the Lord, even Jesus, had appeared to him in the way which he came.

Here we learn, too, that Ananias told the apostle before he was baptized that he should be a witness for Christ unto all men of what he had seen and heard. This ought to have prepared the Jews for the wide scope given to Paul’s ministry. Would they have him resist the ‘God of our fathers’ and His known will? There were two witnesses, by whose mouth every word should be established. In Act 9 his commission is named to Ananias by the Lord, but the historian does not there mention that this was repeated to the apostle. Here we learn that so it was, for he repeats it himself. Everything comes exactly in place and season.

In Act 9 we are told that, when he received his sight, he arose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened, as well as the all-important fact that he was then and there filled with the Holy Ghost. There is no apostolic succession in this case assuredly. Ananias was but a disciple. God was acting extraordinarily in the case of Paul. Jewish order was quite set aside for the apostle of the Gentiles; yet none but the enemy of grace and truth could deny that he was an apostle, with a calling at least as high as the twelve, and called to a work incomparably more extensive and profound.

Here also we have the interesting fact of the terms in which Ananias called him to ‘get baptized’ or submit to baptism, on which a few words may be well, as to some there is no small difficulty. The reason of the departure from the Authorized Version, as well as the Revised, however slight, is an endeavour to express the force of the Middle Voice, as it is called, in Greek. This, however, is independent of the (to some) doctrinal difficulty in calling on the apostle to have his sins washed away in baptism. Why should this seem hard? It is what baptism always means, though indeed it means yet more, even death to sin, as the apostle himself treats it in Rom 6:3 , Rom 6:4 . Baptism is the sign of salvation, as another apostle teaches, who carefully lets us know in the same context that the effectual work rests on Christ’s death and resurrection (1Pe 3:21 , 1Pe 3:22 ). Without faith no doubt all is valueless before God; but, however precious may be that which faith receives through the word, the outward sign has its importance. So much is this so, that no one stands on the external ground of a Christian, who has not been baptized with water to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To refuse baptism is to despise the authority of the Lord, as unbelief slights His grace. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, even if baptized, shall be damned (or, condemned).

The remarkable vision with which Paul first began was by no means the only one; we learn here of another on his return to Jerusalem. 2Co 12:1-4 speaks of them also in a more general way. But what happened in Jerusalem he himself now proceeds to tell in detail. ‘And it came to pass that when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning Me. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believe on Thee; and when the blood of Stephen Thy witness was shed; I also was standing by and consenting,1 and keeping the garments of those that slew him. And He said unto me, Depart, for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word; and they lifted up their voices and said, Away with such [a fellow] from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live’ (vers. 17-22).

1 The Text. Rec. adds with many MSS. et al. ‘to his death,’ evidently imported from Act 8:1 , but the best copies (ABE) and versions do not sanction it.

The incident at Jerusalem is full of interest spiritually, because it communicates the perfect ease and intimacy in which scripture sets forth the relations of the servant with the Master. It would have been easy to have suppressed the account, if it had not been of standing moment and general value. The statement of it had the most distressing effect on the Jews who had listened till then. This excited their indignation to the highest. Nevertheless, as we see, the apostle brought it plainly out to vindicate the direction of his labours without limit as apostle to the Gentiles. We may be quite sure that naturally he had as great a reluctance to go at the word of the Lord on such an errand as the Jews had to hear about it. Traditionally the Jew was everything in the matter of religion; all this feeling and the ground of it was overthrown in the cross of Christ. How true, as the apostle wrote to the Corinthians in his Second Epistle (2Co 5:17 ), ‘The old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God, Who reconciled us unto Himself by Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation’! The power of such a ministry is especially shown, not in abiding at Jerusalem, but in going out toward the Gentiles wherever they may be; for we are not Israelites, nor yet the lost sheep of that house. We are not the people, but rather in comparison ‘dogs’ according to the law. Now, however, all is changed. It is the gospel, and all things are become new. As the mission of our apostle is for heaven, so is his direction towards the Gentiles.

No wonder that he himself shrank even in the presence of the Lord; but so Paul is to learn in his trance at the temple of Jerusalem. ‘Make haste,’ said the Lord, ‘and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning Me.’ This was very painful to the apostle’s heart, others had tasted similar sorrow even before Christianity. Moses knew it in early days, though the stiffneckedness of the Jews then was as nothing compared with what it was proved at the cross. And afterwards Jeremiah and others of the prophets drank enough of this cup to feel the bitterness and grief. But Paul was as remarkable as Moses for the love of Israel, and tasted the bitterness of the Jew more perhaps than any of their prophets. In divine ways he was just the more suited to be sent as Christ’s ambassador to the Gentiles. Had he loved Israel less, he had not been so fit for the new and heavenly mission. In everything it must be above nature to represent grace in any measure aright.

How little those that saw or knew of Paul evangelizing the Gentiles appreciated the feelings with which he had entered on the work! ‘And I said, Lord, themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believe on Thee.’ His heart yearned over Israel, his burning desire was to have laboured in their midst. When the Lord had told him to retire from Jerusalem, because the Jews would not receive of him testimony concerning Christ, he even pleads that he was just the man to go to Jerusalem, that they themselves knew how he had hated the Way, how he had imprisoned and beat in every synagogue the believers. Yea more, he summons up the most terrible tale of persecuting zeal as the crowning reason to be allowed to preach to the Jews, and as a reason why they must surely welcome him if no other preacher of the gospel. ‘And when the blood of Stephen Thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of those that slew him.’ It is evident that Paul used all this as standing him in good stead to labour among the Jews. But He that made the heart knew best, better far than Paul, and He said unto him, ‘Depart; for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.’

The determining word was thus spoken: whatever might be Paul’s feeling, he now learns the will of the Lord concerning his labours. It was not merely now, Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, but ‘I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.’ No Israelite more fervently sought to commend the gospel to the Jews; no servant pleaded for it more earnestly with his Master. The freedom with which he appeals is a standing lesson to us of the liberty into which the gospel brings us. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty’ (2Co 3:17 ). But we should also learn that the gospel leaves no uncertainty for the path and the service. The true light shines. Christ is the way, as well as the truth and the life, and He is not more truly the way to the Father than in Paul’s case toward the Gentiles. The gospel is heavenly light shining into the heart and on the path here below.

Early in this Book we had in Peter a beautiful instance of a conscience purged by blood (Act 3:13 , Act 3:14 ). So complete was it that he could openly tax the Jews with denying the Holy One and the Just. Had he not been guilty of this very sin himself in a more direct way than any other? Yes; but this was now wholly blotted out through the blood which cleanseth from all sin; and so conscious was he that it was gone before God, that he could without a blush charge the Jews with the same sin, without a thought of himself save of infinite mercy towards him.

Similarly, in the verse we last had before us the apostle Paul is another instance, if possible more touching, and no less instructive. He says to the Lord in his desire to preach the gospel to them, ‘They themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on Thee; and when the blood of Stephen, Thy witness, was shed, I also was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of those that slew him.’ Not a trace of the guilt remains on his conscience. As Peter proved in preaching to others, so he, Paul, publicly states to the same people how he had spread it personally before the Lord as the ground on which he wished to be sent as a witness to his brethren after the flesh. But the Lord knew all perfectly. Paul was His chosen vessel, not for Jerusalem, but far hence unto the Gentiles. His conscience was perfectly purged; but the mind of the Lord alone is perfectly right and wise; and so here it was soon proved. ‘They gave him audience unto this word, and they lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live’ (ver. 22).

Intimately familiar as the apostle was with the feelings of the Jews, he was at this time scarcely prepared for their implacable jealousy of the Gentiles. Yet was it what he himself was too conscious of in his unconverted days: the people were now where he was then. The change in him was so complete that he seems to have failed in realizing their condition. Christ was all to him. That they should so abhor the grace of God, rising above all man’s sin, whether Jewish or Gentile, is indeed astonishing, and the clearest proof that man is lost. Hatred of grace is in no way mitigated by intelligence, learning, or religiousness. All these had united in Saul of Tarsus, and they might be found more or less in some of the Jews of Jerusalem. But the same pride of nature and abuse of God’s promises which had led the nation to crucify the Messiah, hardened them now to reject and hate the gospel, above all the sending it to the Gentile no less than the Jew.

‘And as they cried out and threw off their garments and cast dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the castle, directing that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they had shouted thus against him. And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned? And when the centurion heard it he went to the commander and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? For this man is a Roman. And the commander came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yes. And the commander answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am also [so] born. Then they that were about to examine immediately departed from him, and the commander also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him’ (vers. 23-29).

The exasperation of the Jews is manifest in this striking scene. They were roused to the highest degree of feeling on behalf of their religion as they considered it. It is only the faith of Jesus which gives us to see things in God’s light. Had they measured themselves by this standard, they must have been in the dust themselves, and owned that it was all over with them as a people. It was not only that they had failed in righteousness; they had rejected God come down among them in infinite love. Repentance, there fore, of the deepest kind alone became them. They would then have seen that it was not for a guilty people to judge of God’s ways. They would have learnt how admirably suited was grace, now that they were ruined in the last trial that God could make: Jehovah rejected of old by His own people, the Son come in love rejected, the Holy Ghost with the gospel, all rejected. It is in vain to talk of law, or even promises, before the cross. Yet God is now free to save the lost who believe in Jesus whatever they may be.

Granted that the Jews had exceeding privileges and a distinctive covenant, but the Jew had been foremost in slaying Him in Whom all the promises centre, their securer and their crown. All relationship with God for man on the earth, and we may say for Israel especially, was broken and gone, but grace could shine from heaven, and call to heaven all who believe in Christ, and this is exactly what the gospel is now making good. There is a new head and a new calling; but all is in Christ above; and consequently earthly distinctions, as well as disabilities, are alike vanished away. If man universally, Jew or Gentile, is lost, the Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost. This, by the gospel, is effected for those who believe; and Paul’s mission being both the highest and the widest, was pre-eminently to the Gentile world. It was for this heavenly and indiscriminate task he was really fitted when awakened to see his intensely Jewish zeal, now judged in the light, not only of the cross, but of the heavenly glory of Christ. He was the apostle of the uncircumcision. It was therefore a mistake to put himself forward specially before the Jews in Jerusalem, as before with the Lord in the vision.

But there is another element of interest in the passage. The commandant had given orders to examine the apostle by scourging, in order that the cause of the clamour against him might be found out. Paul has resort to a plea most natural, in order to escape pain and ignominy; for it was a serious breach of law that he, a Roman and uncondemned, should be tied up for scourging. Nothing can be calmer too than the manner in which he put it forward. There was no excitement, still less the smallest approach to the assertion of right, which was not unknown then, but has taken an extreme hold of men in our days. The centurion names it to the commander, who inquires and learns that, whilst he had bought his own citizenship, Paul was a Roman born. This, of course, put an end to all thought of torture, and the commander was afraid because he had bound him. But was it the accustomed height of Christian truth on which the apostle stood? Where do we find an approach to it in his Epistles? And where does heavenly and suffering grace shine as in these? Present oneness with Christ effaces all our natural conditions: Jew or Greek, Scythian or barbarian, bond or free, what matters it? Christ is all, as He is in all that are His.

It would appear that what excited the alarm of the commander and the centurion was the tying up Paul with the thongs. This was a great offence against a Roman citizen. ‘Because he had bound him’, I understand to be for this purpose, for in an ordinary way it appears that he was not absolutely loosed. ‘But on the morrow desiring to know the certainty why he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set [him] before them’ (ver. 30). Whatever Jews might do or wish, the Roman law was equitable enough to insist, that an accused person should have his accusers face to face, and be allowed to answer for himself as to the charge laid against him. First, however, the commander sought to learn what the accusation was.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 22:1

1″Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you.”

Act 22:1

NASB”Brethren and fathers”

NKJV”Men, brethren and fathers”

NRSV”Brothers and fathers”

TEV”My fellow Jews”

NJB”My brothers, my fathers”

A Translator’s Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, by Newman and Nida says this implies men of Paul’s age and those older than he (cf. p. 419). However, I think this must be an idiom (Stephen used the same introductory statement in Act 7:2) because Paul was over sixty by this point and this does not fit the age of the mob.

There would have been some believers in this crowd. Possibly the term “the brothers” uniquely refers to them. However, Paul always identified with his race and nationality (cf. Rom 9:1-5; Php 3:5).

“defense” We get the English term “apology” from this Greek word (apologia). It means a legal verbal defense. This term is used several times in Acts related to Paul’s trials (cf. Act 25:16; 2Ti 4:16).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Men, &c. See note on Act 1:11 with Act 7:2.

defence. Greek. apologia. Occurs eight times, here; Act 25:16. 1Co 9:3. 2Co 7:11. Php 1:1, Php 1:7, Php 1:17; 2Ti 4:16. 1Pe 3:15. See the verb, Act 19:33.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1.] This speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his conversion to Christianity, but this time most skilfully arranged and adapted (within legitimate limits) to avoid offence and conciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will appear as we go on. See an enquiry into its diction and rendering into Greek, in the Prolegg. ii. 17 .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn in our Bibles now to the twenty-second chapter of Acts. Pick up on Paul where we left him last week in that very dramatic moment. Paul in spite of repeated warnings from the Holy Spirit has returned to Jerusalem where he has received a very cool reception from the church and a very stern reception by the Jews. For while he was in the temple minding his own business, not doing anything to disturb anyone, going through the rite of purification according to the Jewish law in order that he might celebrate the feast of Pentecost that year, some of the Jews from Asia, when they saw him there, were incensed because they have been following Paul all over Asia trying to undo the work that he was doing among the Gentiles.

And they began to cry out, “Men and brethren, this is that fellow we’ve been telling you about, who among all of the Gentiles has been preaching salvation and all.” And so the Jews grabbed hold of Paul and were endeavoring to beat him to death. And someone reported to the Roman guard up at the Antonio Fortress that there was a raucous going on down in the temple mount and the Antonio Fortress was actually a part of the temple mount area. It was at the northwest corner of the temple mount area. Steps came right down to the temple mount.

During the feast they always had extra soldiers there because that was the time when people’s emotions were apt to become inflamed and the time of rebellion against Rome. So they always brought in extra soldiers at that time. And so a captain of the guard with some of the soldiers came running from the Antonio Fortress down onto the temple mount where they by force took Paul from the angry mob who were endeavoring to beat him to death. They bound him with two chains and brought him back to the steps of the Antonio Fortress. As they were going up the steps, Paul said to the captain of the guard, “Would you grant me permission to speak to these people?” He was surprised that Paul spoke in Greek to him and he said, “Do you speak Greek? Aren’t you that Egyptian that led a rebellion here a while back?”

Paul said, “No, I’m a citizen of Tarsus.” An important city. So he said, “Go ahead and speak.” So Paul beckoned with his hand to the angry mob of Jews that had followed them on up to the Antonio Fortress. And standing there on the porch, he began to address the Jews.

This was something that Paul had been longing to do ever since he found Jesus Christ. Paul felt that having an understanding of the Jew, being one, understanding their zeal, understanding their desire to persecute Jesus Christ, he felt sure that he could convince them of the truth of Jesus Christ. And so this was Paul’s great moment, the moment he had been looking forward to, the moment that he had been pushing and pressing.

I think that it is possible for us to just push our way into situations that the Lord hasn’t necessarily called us into. There are some people who just have that kind of a tendency to just push themselves in to what they desire. “I’m going to get there no matter what it costs. I’m going to do it.” And so Paul is here. I don’t know if he’s here by the will of God or here by the will of Paul at this point. When Paul was on his way back to Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit was warning him not to go every place he would stop. He said to the elders at Ephesus, “I don’t know what awaits me, except I know everywhere I go, the Holy Spirit warns me that there are bonds and afflictions awaiting me there.”

And when he came to the city of Tyre and met together with the church, there was a word of prophecy and the Spirit again told Paul, “Don’t go to Jerusalem.” When he came to the house of Philip in Caesarea, Agabus the prophet came down from Jerusalem. One of the recognized prophets in the church in Jerusalem, took Paul’s girdle and tied himself up and said, “So is the man to be bound who owns this girdle when he gets to Jerusalem.” And so they were trying to dissuade Paul from going, but he was determined. It would seem that perhaps even the Holy Spirit was seeking to dissuade Paul. I could not say for sure. It would be presumptuous of me to say it wasn’t God’s will that he go to Jerusalem. But at least there is that possibility to consider. It is always a sad thing when my will is in conflict with God’s will. It’s even sadder when I push my own will over God’s.

Paul is standing there, though this is his desire. This is his lifelong ambition, that is, Christian life-long. And so we left him last week beckoning with his hand to the people and a great silence coming over the people and him beginning now to speak to them in their Hebrew tongue. To the captain he spoke in Greek. Now to the people he’s going to speak to them in their Hebrew tongue. Chapter twenty-two begins Paul’s impassioned plea to his brethren.

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear my defense ( Act 22:1 )

The word defense in the Greek is apologia and that is why the argument for the Christian faith is often called apologetics. It comes from this particular word, and you’ve heard of apologetics. It has its origin in this Greek word apologia that is translated here defense.

which I make unto you. (And when they heard that he was speaking in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept even more silent: and he said,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, I was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet I was brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel ( Act 22:1-3 ),

Gamaliel was one of the highly respected Jewish rabbis of that day. In fact, probably the most highly respected Jewish rabbi of that day. The Scripture mentions Gamaliel on one other occasion, and that is, when in the early church history they were seeking to silence the witness of the apostles and Gamaliel stood up and he said, “Now let’s be careful what we do. There have been other sects arise and they dissipated at the death of their leader. Now that this leader is dead, it’s apt to dissipate. So I suggest that we just let it alone, for if it is not of God, it will just disappear. If it is of God, then we would find ourselves to be fighting against God.” And so that sagacious advice by Gamaliel was followed by the Sanhedrin which gave the church a bit more toleration in the proclaiming of their message in its very early history.

Gamaliel has written concerning Paul as a student. Gamaliel said of Paul that he had only one difficulty with him as a student, and that was keeping him supplied with enough books. Paul was just a real bookworm of sorts and as a student, was an avid reader. And so Gamaliel’s only problem was keeping him supplied with the books. Paul here speaks of his early training at the feet of Gamaliel.

and I was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of our fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day ( Act 22:3 ).

Paul is seeking to identify with them and letting them identify with him. “Men, brethren, I know what it’s all about. I know your zeal for God. I was just in the same place you are. I’m a Jew. I sat at the feet of Gamaliel.”

And I persecuted this way unto the death ( Act 22:4 ),

Or those who walked in this way, I persecuted them to death.

binding and delivering them into prisons both men and women. And also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all of the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and I went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come near to Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me ( Act 22:4-9 ).

In another accounting of this, it said that they did not hear the voice and people then imagine a discrepancy in the Bible. There are a couple of Greek words employed. One is phone, which is the phonetics which is used here. They did not hear the phone, that is, they heard the sound of the voice but they didn’t hear the phonetics. They didn’t hear the word. They did not understand what the voice was saying to Paul. And that is what is being declared here. They heard the sound of the voice but did not understand the voice that spoke to Paul.

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all of the things which are appointed for thee to do ( Act 22:10 ).

I think that here we have an interesting point that we should bring out again as far as the leading of God in our lives, and that is, that God usually leads us just one step at a time. We brought this out when we were in the earlier part of the book of Acts when Philip was in Samaria holding a successful revival and the Spirit said unto him, “Go down to Gaza” (which is desert). Didn’t give him any further instruction until he got to Gaza, and then the Lord gave him the next step.

We so often want God to spell out the whole thing. We’re not willing to walk by faith. We want God to spell out the entire mission, tell us everything that’s going to be transpiring all the way along. And probably so that I can choose whether or not I want to do it. But when you are a servant of the Lord, you take the orders one step at a time if that’s the way the Lord gives them.

When Peter was on the housetop in prayer at the house of Simon the tanner, and the Lord spoke to him and He said that, “There are men at the gate that have been sent for you. Now go with them asking no questions.” The Lord didn’t tell him what He had in store. “That’s all the further you get at this point, Peter.”

God leads us so often just one step at a time. But often I hesitate to take that first step and I just continue to say, “Oh Lord, now show me Your will. Oh God, I want Your will to be done in my life.” God doesn’t give us step two until we’ve taken step one. After you’ve taken step one, then God will give you step two.

God said to Abraham, “Get out of the land of your fathers and journey to a land that I will show you.” So by faith, Abraham left the land of his fathers not knowing where he was going. Now that’s real faith. “God just told me, ‘Get out.'” “Where you going?” “I don’t know.” “Why are you leaving?” “God told me to leave.” “But where are you going?” “I don’t know.” “Man, that doesn’t make sense.” It does if you’re a servant of God and you’re getting your orders from Him. He’ll give you step two when you’ve taken step one.

And so we must step out in faith. If God has given us step one, then step out in faith. Take that which you understand and know at this point and when you get there, God will give you the next step. He leads us step by step. The will of God is usually a progressive revelation to each of our hearts. It is a continuing progressive revelation.

I would prefer that God didn’t do it that way, because I don’t really enjoy walking by faith. I trust much more in my intellect and understanding than I do faith. And so I would prefer that God would just lay the whole thing out in advance so I’d know each step and each turn that was going to come in the road. But God hasn’t seen fit to lead me that way; He just says, “Go to Damascus and then I’ll show you there. Take step one, then you will receive step two.” The progressive revelation of God’s will to our lives. Because God wants us to walk by faith. For “without faith, it is impossible to please God” ( Heb 11:6 ).

“Arise, go to Damascus, and there you’ll get step two. It will be told you what is appointed for you to do.”

So when I could not see for the glory of that light ( Act 22:11 ),

This brilliant light blinded Paul for a period of time.

I was led by the hand of them that were with me, and I came unto Damascus. And there was a man by the name of Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law ( Act 22:11-12 ),

He was just like you guys.

and he had a good report of all of the Jews which dwelt there ( Act 22:12 ),

Paul is building up Ananias now. He’s not some renegade; he is a man who was devout and of good reputation among the Jews there in Damascus.

And he came to me, and he stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive your sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers has chosen you, that you should know his will, and see that Just [or that righteous] One ( Act 22:13-14 ),

Paul saw Jesus there on the road to Damascus. Paul, as he is giving the list of those who had seen the resurrected Christ, talks about His appearance to Mary, then to the disciples, then to over 500 people at one time. And then Paul said, “And finally unto me as one born out of due season.” And when he is giving his proof for apostleship or for the right of being called an apostle, he said, “Have I not seen the risen Lord?” Ananias said, “God has chosen you.”

When Paul is writing his letter to the Ephesians, and he begins in chapter one after his opening greeting, he began saying, “Thanks be unto God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ in heavenly places” ( Eph 1:3 ). The top of the list of Paul’s thanksgiving list to God for the wonderful things that God had done, for all of the spiritual blessings he had received, the very top of the list, Paul put having been chosen in Him before the foundations of the world. That headed the list of Paul’s thanksgiving, and probably should be the head of all of our list, if we really understand what it means to be chosen of God.

Now here Ananias is declaring this to Paul. “God chose you, Paul.” Jesus said to His disciples, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you” ( Joh 15:16 ). So Paul writing to the saints declares that we’ve been chosen in Him before the foundations of the world. You see, if the Lord didn’t choose me, then everything else would be totally wasted. How grateful I am that God chose me. “The God of our Fathers has chosen you, that you should know His will and see that Just One,”

and should hear the voice of his mouth ( Act 22:14 ).

So Paul, there on the road, God chose him. And Paul realized the grace of God in choosing him because when Paul was chosen, he was breathing out murders, threats against the church. He was highly incensed against Christianity, against Jesus Christ. And yet the Lord chose him that he should not only see Jesus, but that he should hear his voice.

For you shall be his witness unto all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you tarry? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord ( Act 22:15-16 ).

So Paul, to these Jews, is recounting to them his own personal experience of meeting the risen Christ. “I know the way you’re thinking; I understand your attitudes. I was where you are. I also persecuted the church, putting to death those that walked in this way. And I was on my way to Damascus to imprison those who called upon the name of the Lord when the Lord apprehended me.”

And it came to pass, that, when I came again to Jerusalem ( Act 22:17 ),

It sounded like, from the text here, that Paul returned immediately to Jerusalem from Damascus, but that was not so. He stayed in Damascus for a short period of time, but then he went out into the desert. He went out into Arabia, and there he spent close to three years as God revealed to Paul during that period God’s will for Paul’s life as God corrected his whole understanding of the Old Testament scriptures. Paul returned from Arabia to Damascus, began to preach Christ boldly in the synagogues, got the Jews all upset who decided to kill him. So his friends let him down over the wall in a basket so he could escape from Damascus, because the Jews were waiting at the gate of the city to ambush him when he went to leave. And so he came down to Jerusalem, but that was some three years later. But Luke passes it all over, leaves a lot of the history absent, and perhaps Paul did in his witness here. “And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem,”

even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance ( Act 22:17 );

There are other places where a trance-like state is mentioned by those in prayer. And it was in this state that they received visions and that they received the voice of the Lord speaking to their hearts. I understand what a trance is by definition. To my knowledge, I have never been in a trance. That’s not to say that I am opposed to being in a trance. I’m open to anything God wants to do in any way God wants to speak to me. If God would want to put me in a trance and show me a vision or speak to me in a trance, I think that would be absolutely exciting. And the Lord knows I’m open to that if that’s what He wants.

However, the Lord does speak to me quite often; He speaks to me through His Word. And I get just blessed beyond measure as God speaks to me right out of His Word. Again, I’m not opposed to visions, dreams, or trances. I am really open to them and I would frankly admit that I would enjoy such an experience. I would find it quite exciting indeed. Lord, You heard that now. But as yet, I have not experienced it. But that’s not to say that a person can’t experience it or any experience would be invalid. I do not believe that. However, any experience that I have must be subservient to the Word of God. Paul said, “If I or an angel from heaven preach unto you any other gospel than that which you have already received, let him be anathema, let him be accursed” ( Gal 1:8 ).

I mentioned a while back about some guy that used to send out these things on visions where he has this packet of all of these amazing visions and revelations that God has given him. This guy has these for sale, $5.95 special, or $9.95 pack, or $14.95 for the whole caboodle. He built a million dollar church in Phoenix off of the gullible people who sent him for these little vision packets. But would you believe, this last week I got a card from the guy and he’s still in business? I haven’t heard from him for fourteen years. But Neil Frisbie is still getting visions of very interesting and exciting things, and they’re still packed in $5.95, $9.95 and $14.95 packages. “Learn what God . . . ” “It’s better than the Kiplinger Letters. Cheaper!”

Years ago when I was getting almost on a weekly basis these little advertising flyers of the man’s visions, I would look at them and then throw them away. But one day, as I was on my way to a luncheon appointment, running a little late, I stopped by the church, and that was the first little church over on Church Street in Costa Mesa where we had a box out there. And I stopped by and pulled the mail out of the box and started off. And here was one of these Neil Frisbie flyers and so I wadded the thing up and tossed aside. And then I stopped, and I said, “Lord, now I want to be open to You. I don’t want to have a closed mind to everything. I hate being a cynic, though I have to admit that I am cynical about anybody who packages visions and sells them. But Lord, if this man has something to say that I should know or hear, I’ll venture for the $5.95 pack. That’s not too much, I can spring for that.” And the Lord spoke to my heart (not in a trance, just straight, I haven’t had any trance yet), He spoke to my heart His word, Jeremiah: “If a prophet hath a dream, let him tell his dream; but he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. For what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD” ( Jer 23:28 ). I got so excited when the Lord spoke to me that scripture, I pulled off the road because it was dangerous to drive in that condition. And it was just a time of rejoicing in the fact that God has given me His Word. All that we need for life and for godliness is right here, according to Peter.

So any vision or dream or trance experience that I may have, and if I should come to you next Sunday night and say, “Folks, let me tell you, it happened. This last week, it happened. Went home Sunday night and as I laid down, I went into a trance and all these colors began to merge and then I began to see.” And I began to reveal to you some dream or trance or vision that I had, if it was not in complete keeping with the Word of God, then I should be accursed. Secondly, if you would get more excited about that than you do the Word of God, then there’s something wrong with your experience, because I’m giving you chaff, this is the wheat. Did you get that? “If a prophet dreams a dream, let him tell his dream; but he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD” ( Jer 23:38 ). Don’t set aside the wheat for chaff.

What can you say about chaff? Have you ever tried to swallow it? I’m a fresh wheat fan. When I was a little kid we had chickens. And I’d go out to the chicken feed and I’d pick out the wheat because I found that we could chew the wheat for a while and it turned into a gum. And so, I was always chewing wheat gum when I was a kid. And sometimes as I was pulling out the wheat to chew it into a gum, you get some chaff with it, some of that little hull. But if you try to swallow that little hull, it always sticks some place in your throat and you almost gag trying to get it back up. It’s just hard to swallow. So what is the chaff to the wheat? The chaff is hard to swallow.

So I saw him saying unto me ( Act 22:18 ),

He’s in a trance. He has gone back and he’s in the temple, and he’s gone into this trance and the Lord appeared to Paul again and He said,

Make haste, and get quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive your testimony concerning me ( Act 22:18 ).

Now Paul had gone down to really lay the witness on these guys. Because it was three years ago that he left to imprison all the Christians, and now he’s back and he’s really souped up to really, fully charged to lay the witness of Christ. The Lord’s saying, “Get out of here. They’re not going to listen to your testimony concerning Me.”

And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on you ( Act 22:19 ):

Lord, You’re mistaken. These guys know how zealous I was against You.

And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death ( Act 22:20 ),

In other words, “I voted for his death,” which shows that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, that council of religious leaders. “I was consenting, I was voting for his death.”

and I kept the raiment of those that were killing him ( Act 22:20 ).

“God, they know me. They know how I’ve persecuted the church. Surely, Lord, they will believe me.” And so here is Paul arguing with the Lord. Always a mistake, because, as I said this morning, anytime you find yourself arguing with the Lord, just know you are wrong. The Lord’s always right. And yet, there are times I find myself arguing with the Lord. I’m trying to persuade the Lord to see it my way. “Lord, can’t You see? This is a natural, Lord.” But whenever you argue with the Lord, you’re wrong. So Paul found himself in that totally inconsistent position of arguing with the Lord, because if He’s the Lord, really, there’s no argument. You just do what He says if He is truly the Lord.

And he said unto me, Depart ( Act 22:21 ):

Didn’t argue with Paul. He just said, “Get out.”

for I will send you far hence unto the Gentiles ( Act 22:21 ).

And that word was like waving a red flag before a bull as far as the Jews were concerned; when that word Gentiles was mentioned, it was lighting the match to the gasoline–immediate explosion.

And they gave Paul audience up unto this word ( Act 22:22 ),

And the moment he said Gentiles,

they began to scream, Away with such a fellow from the earth: it is not fit that he should live. And they took off their clothes, and began to wave them in the air and throwing dirt into the air ( Act 22:22-23 ),

Just really kicking up dirt, waving their clothes, and this big commotion.

The chief captain commanded Paul to be brought into the castle, and he ordered that he should be examined by scourging; that they might understand why the people got so excited ( Act 22:24 ).

“What did he say?” He was talking in Hebrew. The captain didn’t understand Hebrew. All he saw was Paul’s talking away, everybody’s listening intently, until all of a sudden everybody starts to scream. They start taking off their clothes and waving them and throwing dirt in the air and trying to surge towards Paul to get him. And so he takes him in, he says, “Scourge him. Find out what he said.”

Scourging was a method of inquisition. It used to be called the third degree. Now the prisoner has so many rights that if the officer doesn’t say, “Please,” the judge will let him off. But in those days, the Roman government would scourge a prisoner, which was a method of eliciting by torture the confessions from a prisoner.

Most generally, they would tie his hands with thongs, the leather thongs, and then they would tie him to this post–they call it the whipping post–where his back was in a bent-over position, totally exposed. They would then take a whip called the cat of nine tails that had these leather straps with the little bits of broken glass and lead embedded in it that were designed to rip the flesh off of the body when the whip was laid down hard upon the body. They would tie the prisoner in this position, exposed back, and then the fellow would begin to lay the lashes on and standing there would be a scribe, a court reporter, who would then record every confession of the prisoner. And after each stripe, the prisoner would then cry out a confession, they would write it down, then they would lay another stripe on, and he’d cry out something else that he had done. And as long as the prisoner cooperated and would cry out his confessions, they’d lay it on a little easier until they had elicited from him a full confession to everything. And then they would just sort of lay it across his back until he had received thirty-nine stripes.

Quite often the prisoners died in this inquisition. It was very painful and it did cause a tremendous loss of blood. If a prisoner would refuse to confess to a crime, then the executioner would lay the stripe on heavier and heavier and heavier until he would be forced in agony to cry out his crime. A real torturous device of the Roman government by which prisoners were interrogated and Rome was able to solve a lot of crimes.

In thinking of Jesus, Pilate ordered that He be scourged. Isaiah said, “But as a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth” ( Isa 53:7 ). He had nothing to confess. And so as they laid those thirty-nine stripes on Jesus, each one was heavier and heavier until His body was broken, broken open. Bones weren’t broken by this process, but the body was broken open. The back was like hamburger meat, ripped to shreds by this beating. “He was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes, we are healed” ( Isa 53:5 ).

They ordered that they scourge Paul. However,

As they bound him with these thongs ( Act 22:25 ),

That was in preparation to scourge him.

Paul said to the centurion that was standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and not condemned? ( Act 22:25 )

A Roman citizen cannot be scourged unless he had first been adjudged condemned by the court, guilty by the court. And then before the crucifixion, they would usually scourge him to solve a lot of the unsolved crimes.

When the centurion heard that, he told the chief captain, he said, You better be careful what you do; for this man is a Roman citizen. And the chief captain came, and he said to him, Tell me, are you a Roman citizen? And Paul said, Yes. The chief captain answered and he said, With a great sum of money obtained I this freedom. Paul said, I was born free. Then immediately they departed from him those which were going to examine him: and the chief captain was also afraid, after he knew that Paul was a Roman, because he had bound him ( Act 22:26-29 ).

Which was contrary to the Roman law to bind a Roman citizen until formal charges had been made.

On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty of the accusations of the Jews, he loosed Paul from his bands, and he commanded the chief priests and all of their council to appear, and he brought Paul down, and set him before them ( Act 22:30 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Act 22:1-2. Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Men like to be addressed in their own language; they give the more heed to the message if it is spoken to them in words that they can understand.

Act 22:3-9. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Pauls companions could not help sensing that extraordinary light, and though they did not understand what it was, they were alarmed by it. They also heard a supernatural sound, but they could not comprehend what the voice of Jesus said to their leader as he lay prostrate upon the ground.

Act 22:10-12. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one, Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

These particulars concerning the character of Ananias do not appear in the former part of the narrative. Paul was endeavoring to conciliate his hearers, and therefore he mentioned that Ananias was a devout Jew, having a good report of all his brethren who dwelt in Damascus.

Act 22:13-14. Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

If Paul was to be an apostle, it was necessary that he should see the Lord Christ, for one of the qualifications of an apostle was that he should be able to bear witness, from his eyesight, and from his hearing, to the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore it was that Saul did, at that time, see that Just One, and did hear the voice of his mouth.

Act 22:15-16. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

These two things were necessary; first, he was to be baptized on profession of his faith in Jesus, and then, he was to have in his soul a vivid consciousness that his sins were all washed away. This was not baptismal regeneration, for he was already regenerate. It was, however, the obedience to the Lords command, which brought with it a sweet reassurance of the forgiveness of his sins.

This exposition consisted of readings from Act 9:1-22; and Act 22:1-16.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Act 22:1. , Fathers) There were present high priests and elders.-, now) Heretofore they had not heard him by reason of the tumult. His defence looks back to ch. Act 21:28; for as there, so also here, mention is made of the person of Paul, Act 22:3; of the people and of the law, Act 22:3; Act 22:5; Act 22:12; of the temple, Act 22:17; of the teaching of all men, Act 22:15-17; Act 22:21; and of the truth of the doctrine taught, Act 22:6, etc. Moreover he handles these topics with much energy, as his time was limited.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 22:1-30

PAULS DISCOURSE ON THE TEMPLE STAIRS

Act 22:1-30

1 Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence-We enter now upon a series of pleas made by Paul in his self-defense; this is the first of five pleas which are recorded in the following chapters. These pleas are made under different circumstances, and lead to the close of the book of Acts. This is Pauls first formal vindication of himself before his own people. He uses the same greeting that Stephen used. (Act 7:2.) Fathers here may include members of the Sanhedrin and rulers and doctors of the law. Paul here, like Stephen, mentions his ancestors; this is done by way of conciliation. Defence is from the Greek apologia, and is the word from which we get apology; however, Paul is not making an apology in the sense that we use the term, but is using it in its original sense, which means defence without implying any wrong that he had done.

2 And when they heard that he spake-Paul spoke to them in his and their native tongue, the Hebrew language. By his speaking in the Hebrew he would show himself a Jew and familiar with their language and law. They may have expected him to speak in the Greek language. It had the desired effect, for when they heard him speak in the Hebrew language, the mob quieted down and was willing to listen to him.

3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia,-Paul shows himself by birth and education to be a Jew; though of foreign birth, nevertheless, a Jew in the strictest sense. Perhaps Paul put the emphasis on I, which means I am indeed a Jew. Paul is not boasting, but he does set forth those things which distinguish him as a Jew. Tarsus was a city of the province of Cilicia. Paul probably lived in Tarsus until he was eleven years of age, not later than thirteen years of age, as the Jewish parents put their sons in training at the age of twelve. Gamaliel was an eminent Jewish teacher at Jerusalem. The custom was for the teacher and student to sit, the teacher on a higher level than the student. Hence, the expression at the feet of Gamaliel. Gamaliel was the grandson of the famous rabbi Hillel, and so esteemed as a scribe that it was said, When Gamaliel died, the glory of the law ceased. Paul had been instructed according to the strict manner of the law of the Jews. Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews (Php 3:5), and as touching the law, a Pharisee (Act 26:5). Paul had been zealous for God, even as these Jews were now. He had learned better, and wished to teach them better.

4 and I persecuted this Way unto the death,-Paul had mentioned his former zeal for the law to let them know that at one time he was as they now are; yet it was the deepest grief and shame to him that he had been as they were now. (1Co 15:7-10.) This Way is frequently used by Luke as a term for Christianity; it was familiar to disciples or Christians. Paul had formerly pursued them unto death; he threw them into prison without regard to sex; he showed his intense zeal for the law by his bitter persecution of Christians.

5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness.-The Gamaliel mentioned here by Paul is probably the same Gamaliel mentioned in Act 5:34. The high priest who had commissioned Paul (Act 9:2 Act 9:14) was not in office at this time, but the documents of his predecessor were in possession of the present high priest. Estate has an old sense of the assembly; hence, the estate of the elders means the assembly or council or Sanhedrin. Paul had received authority by letters to go to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. Paul was clothed with the highest authority that could be conferred upon him; he had authority from the highest priest and from the Sanhedrin. At that time he was determined to stop the spread of Christianity. (Act 8:1 Act 8:3 Act 26:11.)

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey,-There are three accounts of Pauls conversion-one in chapter 9, another in chapter 22, and the third in chapter 26. These separate accounts show only such minor variations as would naturally occur when only the substantial facts are mentioned. It came to pass; that is, it occurred as Paul journeyed and approached Damascus. Here he mentions that it was about noon, which is not mentioned in chapter 9; in Act 26:13, in his defense before Agrippa, Paul says it was at midday. This great light from heaven was very brilliant to exceed the brightness of the sun at midday.

7 And I fell unto the ground,-In Acts 9 Saul fell upon the earth (verse 4), and arose from the earth (verse 8), but here he fell unto the ground; no difference in meaning; in Act 26:14 it is related that they all fell to the earth.

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord?-The answer given to this question was: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. In chapter 9 Luke gives the answer as: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (Act 9:5.) In Act 26:15 the answer is: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me beheld-In Act 9:7 Luke says that the men who accompanied Paul stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man, but here the record says that they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. In Acts 9 we have Lukes record of the events, but here we have his record as giving what Paul said; here he is quoting Paul. Some have pointed out a contradiction in the record here and in Acts 9.

There is no contradiction. Two different points of time in the event could be referred to; again, they heard but did not perceive; and again, they heard the voice or sound, but did not hear or distinguish the words. In Act 26:14 we learn that the voice was in the Hebrew language. It may be that those who were with Paul did not understand the Hebrew language; hence, would hear the noise or sound, but would not understand. We are to under-stand that the attendants saw and heard enough to satisfy them of the miraculous appearing of Christ, but were not allowed to see his person or understand his words. We have here one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Pauls speech in that Luke did not try to avoid apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already given.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord?-In answer to his question, the Lord told Saul to arise, and go into Damascus. The Lord did not tell Saul further what to do; he did not forgive his sins or convert him here. Saul must hear the gospel, which is Gods power unto salvation. Saul was directed to go into Damascus, and there he should receive fuller instruction about all things which are appointed for thee to do. Paul was to meet Ananias in Damascus for further instruction. It should be noted that there were other things which Saul must do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light,-The light was about the brightness of the Eastern noonday sun; it blinded Paul; some think that the glare of that light never quite left Paul, and that his eyes never recovered their full strength after this event. This supposition is based on Pauls expression: Ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. (Gal 4:15.) Paul was led by his traveling companions into Damascus where he was to meet Ananias.

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law,-In Act 9:10 Luke calls Ananias a disciple. Here Paul speaks of him as a devout man according to the law. He was of good report among the Jews that dwelt in Damascus. This description was suited to conciliate his audience in every lawful way. This was consistent with the account which appears in Act 21:20 in the words of James as to how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed. In this defense Paul is making it clear that his change was brought about by divine agencies. He was at one time as they are now, but he has changed, and the Lord is responsible for the change; hence, they should not blame Paul.

13 came unto me, and standing by me said unto me,-Paul now shows that Ananias came to him by divine authority. Ananias was commissioned by the Lord to do what he did. He addressed Paul with, Brother Saul. This showed that Ananias recognized Saul as a brother Jew; it does not show that Ananias recognized Saul at this time as a Christian. Paul had addressed these hostile Jews as Brethren and fathers. (Act 22:1.) This does not mean that Paul recognized these hostile Jews as Christians. Ananias restored sight to Paul; this showed Paul that Ananias was commissioned by the Lord; he had power to work miracles. Paul received his sight and looked upon Ananias.

14 And he said, The God of our fathers-Paul here quotes what Ananias said to him in part. Ananias gives in substance what was revealed to him about Sauls mission. Paul keeps constantly before his hearers that he is following divine instruction; that the change that he has made was brought about by divine agencies. Ananias is still loyal to the God of Israel, and speaks of him as the God of our fathers. Paul is to know the will of God and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. This emphasizes that Paul was chosen of God to know Gods will and to see Christ. Paul was not only to know Gods will to save men, but he was to know his will about what he was to do and to suffer in the service of God. Christ is frequently called the Righteous One. (Act 3:14 Act 7:52.) Paul was made an apostle by seeing Christ and being commissioned by him. (1Co 9:1 1Co 15:8; Gal 1:1 Gal 1:11-12.)

15 For thou shalt be a witness-Paul was to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ and to preach his gospel to the unsaved. He was called, as were the other apostles, and sent out as a witness. He was a chosen vessel of the Lord to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts 9 :

15.) However, Paul does not mention Gentiles here, as it would arouse Jewish prejudice against his cause. He does say that he is to be a witness of Christ unto all men of all that he had seen and heard. Paul is very tactful in making this address. Paul in witnessing for Christ based his teachings on facts of knowledge and experience as did the other apostles.

16 And now why tarriest thou?-After instructing Paul as he was commissioned to do, Ananias encouraged him to do what the Lord commanded him to do; he was encouraged to do this immediately; he should not tarry or delay. He is now given more definite instruction as to what he should do. Paul was prostrate, or in a recumbent posture; hence, he is commanded to arise, and be baptized. Baptisai is in the first aorist middle voice of the verb, not the passive form as in Act 2:38. It literally means cause thyself to be baptized, or suffer someone to baptize thee. And wash away thy sins states the purpose of his baptism. Apolousai literally means get washed off as in 1Co 6:11. This signifies that baptism is in order to the remission of sins or the cleansing of sin. Pauls sins were not forgiven when he saw and heard the Lord on the way to Damascus. As Pauls body was to be washed in the act of baptism, so his sins were to be forgiven. Calling on his name means invoking the name of Christ in so doing. He was thus commanded to do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Here baptism is clearly set forth as one of the conditions of the remission of sins, and not merely as a symbol of what had already been done.

17-18 And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem,-It seems that it was after three years absence (Gal 1:18) that Paul returned to Jerusalem. Paul had left Jerusalem for Damascus with authority to persecute Christians; he was converted and ceased his persecution and went to preaching Christ, going into Arabia and then returning to Damascus, and after three years went to Jerusalem. When he came to Jerusalem this time he went into the temple to pray and fell into a trance. A mention of this showed that he still honored the temple as the house of God. This is a visit recorded in Act 9:29 when the Jews sought to kill Paul. This trance, or state of ecstasy, was a special divine in-fluence under which Paul was brought while praying. Peter fell into a trance while on the housetop. (Act 10:10.) Later he spoke of this trance as a vision. (Act 10:17.) In this trance Paul saw the Lord, and the Lord spoke to him and said: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem. The reason assigned was because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me. Paul must leave Jerusalem, as they would not hear his testimony concerning Jesus; hence he goes and preaches to the Gentiles.

19 And I said, Lord, they themselves know-Paul here recounts the persecutions that he had brought against Christians. He seems to plead with the Lord that men cannot help receiving the testimony from one who had previously been such an enemy of Jesus of Nazareth. These words of Paul seemed to be now addressed to his hearers so that they may be impressed with strength of the testimony given by one who had imprisoned Christians. Paul had imprisoned and beaten Christians for believing on Christ.

20 and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed,-Paul seems further to argue his case by recounting the persecution that he brought upon the disciples of the Lord. He was present at the stoning of Stephen (Act 7:58); this was the first mention that we have of Paul. Paul stood by and encouraged those who stoned Stephen. He says that he was keeping the garments of them that slew him. Some think that Saul at this time was a member of the Sanhedrin, and that he was superintending the execution of Stephen. Witness is from the Greek marturos, from which we get martyr. The word was in its transition state at this time; hence, Stephen thy witness, would mean Stephen thy martyr.

21 And he said unto me, Depart:-The Lord did not discuss the matter with Paul. His answer was clear and emphatic; depart; that is, get out of Jerusalem. The words of the Lord were dignified but imperative. The Lord added that he would send Paul far hence unto the Gentiles. This narration would impress the Jewish multitude that it was Pauls wish to labor among his own people, but that Christ had commanded him to go to the Geniles. When they heard the word Gentile they were ready to destroy Paul. Pauls voice was drowned by the uproar of the mulitude, and he was taken into the castle for safety and for further investigation and examination.

22 And they gave him audience unto this word;-This word does not mean the word Gentile, but the Greek literally means this saying or this announcement that he was sent to the Gentiles. This reminds one very much of the ending of Stephens speech as recorded in Acts 7. When Paul made his reference to Stephen the crowd may have been cut to the heart, and may have begun to gnash with their teeth. However, when the mention of the hated Gentiles was made, the old frenzy broke out, aggravated by the thought that Paul, standing on the stairway, was out of their reach. The crowd now shouted: Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. They could not conceive of their Messiah as having given such orders to such a base fellow as Paul. Pauls claim seemed so absurd and blasphemous to them that they would not hear him any longer.

23-24 And as they cried out, and threw off their garments,-There are three acts mentioned here which express their great rage. Their loud and clamorous shouts, their throwing off their garments, and their casting dust into the air, all express their infuriated confusion, and their determination to destroy Paul if they could lay hands on him. Shouting with deafening cries, and tearing off garments, and hurling dust into the air are ways by which they showed their bitterness and furious anger. They thew off their outer robes or coverings to allow free gesticulation; they threw dust at Paul (2Sa 16:13), and shouted incessantly. The chief captain or Roman officer saw that it was no use for Paul to talk longer; hence, he commanded Paul to be brought into the castle. He gave orders that Paul should be examined by scourging. He commanded Paul to be tortured until he should confess to some crime.

The chief captain could not understand Hebrew, and did not know what Paul had said; he only saw that Pauls speech had infuriated the mob again, and that in their opinion he was a criminal worthy of death. He thought that something must be done. Scourging was inflicted on a victim to extract the truth; the victim was put to torture, to compel him to confess his crime. Scourging is described as the mildest form of examination; a wooden post was erected in a slanting position, and the feet and hands were made fast to it with thongs, and blows applied with the scourge or whip, formed of three lashes or thongs made of leather or small cords, to which some iron points or sharp-cornered pieces of metal were fastened. Lysias did not care to see the torture applied, so he commanded others to scourge Paul.

25 And when they had tied him up with the thongs,-As they were making preparation to scourge Paul, he asked the centurion who was standing by: Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned ? It seems that they had already tied Paul and had him ready to inflict the punishment, when the centurion who was directing the punishment was astonished to learn that Paul was a Roman citizen. Roman historians sometimes speak of centurions as presiding over punishment, and an officer of that rank seems to have had charge of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Mat 27:54; Mar 15:39; Luk 23:47.) It was contrary to the Roman law to begin an examination of a Roman citizen by scourging. The chief captain had violated this law in ordering Paul to be scourged.

26 And when the centurion heard it,-When the centurion learned that Paul was claiming the rights of a Roman citizen, he reported at once to the chief captain and said: What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman. Literally, the centurion said: What are you about to do? for this man is a Roman. This was a warning to the chief captain not to go any further. Paul did not mean that he was a Roman by birth or residence, but in right and privilege, he was a Roman citizen. It was easy to find out whether a prisoner was making a false claim to being a Roman citizen; the punishment for such a claim was death. Both the chief captain and the centurion admitted Pauls claim to be true.

27 And the chief captain came and said-When the chief captain learned from the centurion that Paul was claiming the rights of a Roman citizen, he went at once to Paul and put the question directly to him: Art thou a Roman ? Paul answered emphatically; Yea, The chief captain was now satisfied that Pauls claim was true; he was subject to penalty for commanding Paul to be scourged.

28 And the chief captain answered,-It was difficult for the chief captain to believe that Paul was a Roman citizen; hence, he said: With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. There were usually three ways by which one enjoyed the rights of Roman citizenship; namely, by purchasing citizenship with a large sum of money; next, by having citizenship conferred upon one because of some great service to the Roman government; and third, by being born a Roman. To be born a Roman citizen seems to have been more honorable than to purchase the rights of citizenship. This centurion enjoyed his rights of citizenship through purchase, but Paul was Roman born. We are not told how he obtained citizenship by birth. It was not because he was born in Tarsus, for Tarsus was not a colony, but only a free city; birth in a free city did not necessarily confer Roman citizenship. Pauls father or grandfather had probably received the honor for some service to the state; his father or grandfather might have even purchased their Roman citizenship. It matters but little how he obtained this; we are confronted with the fact that he was freeborn. Hence, he stood in a more honorable relation to the Roman government than did the chief captain.

29 They then that were about to examine him-Those who had bound Paul quickly loosed him and departed from him. Even the chief captain was afraid because he had commanded the Roman citizen to be scourged. Lysias, the chief captain, knew the Roman law, so he at once released Paul; he was about to commit a greater crime than even Paul was accused of. Paul may have had some pas and abundant references in the city by which he was ready to prove his claim to citizenship. The action of the chief captain could be interpreted as taking sides with a Jewish mob; hence, he is careful now to protect the safety of Paul. Paul had not only been bound, but he was tied up to the whipping post. It was not contrary to law to bind a Roman citizen in order to secure him for trial, so Paul remained in chains, fastened to a soldier, while living in Rome awaiting his trial before Caesar. (Act 28:20.) However, it was illegal to inflict the indignity of tying to the whipping post as slaves were accustomed to being tied.

30 But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty-Paul remained in the custody of the chief captain until the next day. The chief captain desired to know the reason for the Jews accusation against Paul. He had failed in his attempt to find out from Paul; so his next course was to order the Sanhedrin to assemble and have Paul brought before it. It seems that he left Paul there for the council to examine and report on the case. He may have left the guard with Paul until after charges were ascertained. The chief captain commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together. The chief priests are mentioned as the most important class; then the council as second class was mentioned. The chief captain seems to have left Paul before the council to examine and report on the case. Our next is a study of Paul before the council.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 22

In what relation did Paul designate his hearers?

What did he ask them to hear?

Ten what stilled the audience.

Was Paul born and reared in the same city?

By whom was he taught?

State what he was taught.

What was his attitude toward God?

Explain “this way” in verse four.

How had he opposed it?

Whom does he cite as witnesses?

How did they qualify as witnesses?

From where did a great light shine?

At what time of day?

Near what city?

What did Saul do?

Tell what he heard.

Did he recognize the voice?

How could he persecute Jesus?

How were the men with Saul affected?

Repeat the question Saul asked the Lord.

Was a direct answer given?

How might he get the answer?

Why could he not see?

State his description of Ananias.

What miracle was be5towcd upon Saul?

For what had God chosen him?

Why should he not tarry here 1

What shows he was not converted on the way?

After coming to Jerusalem what came upon him?

What did he see?

Tell what he was urged to do.

What reason did the Lord give him?

Why was Paul confused over the Lord’s statement?

To whom was he to be sent?

What word broke silence of the hearers?

Tell what they demanded to be done.

Why should it be done?

How did the crowd demonstrate itself?

Who intervened?

What examination was ordered?

How was it to be enforced?

State the protest Paul made.

Was he a Homan or a Jew?

In what sense was he “uncondemned” at the time?

Relate the action of the centurion.

State the inquiry this prompted.

What was Paul’s advantage over the chief captain?

How did this conversation affect the case?

Where was Paul brought next day?

Why did the chief captain do this?

Acts Chapter Twenty-Two

Ralph Starling

As Paul began his defense

They responded with greater silence.

He related facts about his background.

Evidence to show that he was sound.

His family, his rearing, taught as a Jew.

His conduct as to the Law they all knew,

About his education in Gamalials school

Should tell them he was no fool.

When Christians grew to the point it alarmed us.

I received letters to go to Damascus.

To find those Christians and to bind them,

Bring them to Jerusalem and imprison them.

On the way I was blinded and could not see.

I heard Jesus say, Why do you persecute me?

To ignore that, I would have been a fool.

I said, Lord, what must I do?

The crowd listened for quite awhile.

Until he said he was told to go to the Gentiles.

They reacted with conduct most brazen,

And demanded action without reason.

Paul said, Is it lawful to treat a Roman so mean?

The commander was frightened that he allowed such a scene.

He quickly ordered the Sanhedrin to assemble,

And stood Paul up for them to examine.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Paul’s defense as here recorded is a rare and perfect example of Christian argument. He was defending his devotion to work among the Gentiles. In that defense the last word he was permitted to utter was the word “Gentiles.” Immediately the fury of the crowds burst out. In that moment of crisis Paul broke once and forever with the trammels of the Judaic system.

At this point we have a remarkable view of the condition of affairs in the church at Jerusalem. Quite evidently there were many who still observed all the forms and ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. They were attempting the policy of compromise.

In connection with the frenzy of the mob we have another case of Paul claiming his rights of earthly citizenship. Suffering for Christ’s sake is a holy privilege, but no man has any right to court martyrdom in order to allow men to sin when a protest may prevent them. Paul gloried in the stigmata of Jesus, but he did not fail to prevent scourging when it was in his power legally to do so. Thus it is seen that meekness is not foolhardiness, and courage may express itself in preventing suffering as much as in enduring it.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

How His Life Was Changed

Act 22:1-16

What a sermon Paul preached! His pulpit, the steps that ascended from the Temple level to the Castle of Antonia. His audience, the frenzied crowds who filled the court below him, but who were calmed to silence as they heard the venerable Hebrew speech, which was unintelligible to the Romans around them. His text, the real and personal interposition of the living Christ to arrest his course of persecution and convert him. Here was a fact, which to the Apostle was the greatest of all facts, namely, that he had seen Jesus Christ, and had been transformed by what he had seen and heard. No light thing could have revolutionized his life. His zeal for the Old Covenant and his persecution of the Christian sect were guarantees of his anti-Christian bias. He was not shallow or fickle, or likely to be moved by anything less than an imperative revelation.

We must obey a step at a time. God says much to us directly, but He loves to employ servants like Ananias, who live in immediate touch with Him. Paul never forgot that salutation, Brother. Be very careful how you treat young converts; they need the kindest and most sympathetic handling as they step out into their new life.

We are chosen of God for three things: to know His will; to see Him; and to hear His voice, Act 22:14.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

There is tremendous power in personal testimony. It is a great thing to proclaim Christ and Him crucified. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1Co 1:18). We are commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. When the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness [or the simplicity] of preaching to save them that believe (21). But I am afraid the mere proclamation of the gospel would avail very little unless there were men and women to support the preacher and his message and say, I believed the message and my whole life was transformed. I came in my sin and my guilt and I trusted the Lord Jesus, and He has cleansed me from my sins. When I heard the gospel message, I was under the power of evil and wicked habits. They bound my soul like fetters, but He snapped the chains that bound me, and set me free. My whole being was diseased with sin, but Jesus healed me. I was blind to eternal realities, but whereas once I was blind, now I see. This kind of testimony confirms to men the power that is in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is a very interesting fact that five times in Scripture we have the story of Pauls conversion. I have sometimes heard people object to men frequently relating the account of Gods dealing with them. They think that they should just preach the doctrinal message, but in the Word of God we read Pauls testimony five times. In Acts 9 we have the historical account of his conversion as related by Luke. In this twenty-second chapter of Acts we have what we might call Pauls Hebrew account of his conversion as, standing on the stairs of the tower of Antonia that overlooked the temple court, he told his Jewish brethren how God had saved him. He presented the story in such a way that it would have appealed particularly to their hearts.

Then in Acts 26 we have what might be called the Gentile account of his conversion. Standing before Festus, the Roman governor, and King Agrippa, he again related at length Gods dealing with him. That account was given in such a way that it would have been of special interest to that cynical, unbelieving ruler, Festus, as well as to Agrippa.

Then in Philippians 3 we have the whole wonderful story told again. Paul described his religion, his hope, and in what he had trusted before he knew the Lord Jesus. Then he spoke of the wonderful revelation of the righteousness of God in Christ, which led him to put away all confidence in any righteousness of his own.

In 1 Timothy he wrote once more what he had been-a blasphemer, a persecutor of the church-in his ignorance and unbelief. Then he told how God in infinite mercy reached out to him, saved his guilty soul and made him His messenger to those still in their sins.

You remember, as we saw in the last chapter of Acts, the people took Paul and were about to kill him. The Roman chief captain, not knowing what was going on, came down and arrested Paul, but gave him an opportunity to speak for himself. So Paul stood on the stairs and related the story of his conversion to the great Jewish multitude gathered below in the court of the temple.

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you. Paul was a Jew by birth. He was speaking to his Jewish brethren, and he addressed them in an appropriate manner. He had long since learned to make himself all things to all men, declaring, Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the JewsTo the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak (1Co 9:20; 1Co 9:22). And so he addressed them here in what they themselves would recognize was a proper way to speak to his own Hebrew people.

And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence. Oh, the appeal there is in the tongue that one has been accustomed to from childhood! There is something about your own native idiom that especially grips your attention.

Paul recognized the intense bigotry in their hearts, and religious bigotry is the worst kind to overcome. He began his story in a very simple way. Since they considered him a hater of their nation who wanted to tear down the things that they loved, he reminded them that there was a time when he was just as zealous as any of them in maintaining the institutions of Judaism.

Although there are people in the world who despise the Jews, no one should ever be ashamed of being a Jew. None need be ashamed to be known as a member of that chosen race-that race to whom God committed the divine oracles and which, through the millennia, has maintained the truth of the one God.

When Disraeli was speaking in the British Parliament, a certain lord rose to his feet and cried out in most contemptuous tones, You, sir, are a Jew. Disraeli drew himself up to his full height, which was not very much, and replied: My lord, you accuse me of being a Jew. I am proud to answer to the name, and I would remind you, sir, that one-half of Christendom worships a Jew and the other half a Jewess. And I would also remind you that my forefathers were worshiping the one true and living God while yours were naked savages in the woods of Britain.

We Gentiles will never be able to thank God enough for what the Jews have meant to us in preserving the Holy Scriptures and giving us our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who declared: Salvation is of the Jews (Joh 4:22).

Paul began his testimony by saying that he was a Jew-one of those dispersed among the Gentiles. He was educated in Jerusalem, a student of Gamaliel, a well-known rabbi, whose reputation for righteousness is revered among the Jews to this day. He continued, I was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

It is possible to have a zeal for God and yet not have it according to knowledge. Paul said of his own kinsmen after the flesh in another place:

Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God (Rom 10:1-3).

That was the state of Paul himself for years. Ignorant of how righteous God really is, he imagined he could work out a satisfactory righteousness of his own. He was endeavoring to do that very thing until he was brought into contact with the living Christ and found in Him a righteousness in which he could stand perfect before God. But in the former days, he had persecuted this way unto the death. It is interesting to note that the way is frequently used in the book of Acts as the term for Christianity. Christianity is the way to God, to life, to Heaven.

Then he said, The high priest (perhaps the high priest was standing there as he spoke) doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And there those elders stood, waiting to bring their accusations against him.

But as he drew near Damascus, the great event that transformed his life had taken place. The most remarkable thing about the story of Pauls conversion is that he had a conversion to tell of. I know a great many professing Christians who can tell scarcely anything about their conversion. Of course, we recognize the fact that many have come to know the Lord Jesus Christ in early childhood. It is not necessary, nor may it be possible for them, to retain the memory of the time when they first came to Christ. These things fade from the childs mind. But others who have gone on to adult years before they came to know the Lord ought to be able to give some account of what took place when they turned from darkness to light and from death to life.

A parishioner once asked his minister, Would you mind if I suggested a subject that you should use on some occasion? The minister said, I am very pleased to have you show that much interest. What is it you would like me to speak on? Well, the man replied, I would like very much if you would give us a sermon on the text, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. I shall be delighted to do that, and I will notify you in advance when I am going to speak on that subject.

The time came when he was to speak on the text, and he thought, Let me see, how will I divide it? Conversion- what? Conversion- how? Conversion- when? Conversion- where? He thought a little on conversion-what? Well, conversion must be the turning of the heart to God; and he elaborated on that. And then he came to conversion-how? How is a man converted? A little perplexed, he thought, Well, let me see, how was I converted? Why, I dont know. I think Ill pass over that just now.

He came to the next point: conversion-when? Well, one may be converted as a child; one may be converted in youth; or one may be converted in mature years. But then the thought came to him, When was I converted? Was I converted when I was a child? I cant remember. Well, was I converted when I was a youth? No, I am sure I was not, for I got far away from God out in the world. No, not as a youth. Was I converted when I came to more mature years? I do not recall.

So he passed on to the next point: conversion-where? It might take place in the home, in the church, in the Sunday school, or out in the open. God is ready to meet men wherever they may be. Then the thought came to him, Where did it take place with me? Was I converted at home? Was I converted in church? Have I ever been converted? And suddenly it came to him in tremendous power, l am preaching to other people and I have never been converted myself. I dont know when, how, or where I was converted. I have never been converted at all!

He preached his own sermon to himself, and got down before God and told the Lord Jesus that he would trust Him as his Savior, and that was the beginning of a new life and a new ministry. When he came into the pulpit on Sunday to preach on conversion, his words had tremendous power for he was a new man.

Do you know anything about conversion? You may be a church member, but that is not conversion. You may have been baptized, but that is not conversion. You may take the sacrament of the Lords Supper, and be interested in missions, but these are not conversion.

You like to help the cause of Christ perhaps, but that is not conversion. Conversion is a turning to God from self. It is taking the place of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you know anything of the experience that Paul knew of trusting Christ?

Paul continued: And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. Paul saw an actual light shining from Heaven-the light of the glory of God reflected from the face of Jesus Christ. Seeing the light is always the beginning of real conversion. Men go on in darkness until light from Heaven shines into their hearts as they come under the convicting power of the Word in the energy of the Holy Spirit. That Word causes the light to shine in and shows man what he really is-a poor, lost sinner in the sight of God-and then reveals the Savior that He has provided.

Paul continued, And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? He was amazed, and said: Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. The men with Paul heard a strange noise but could not discern actual words. They thought perhaps it was thunder or something like that, but he could hear every word distinctly. And he asked, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Then we read, And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. I think we may take a spiritual meaning out of those words, I could not see for the glory of that light. The glory that shone from the face of Jesus blinded Saul of Tarsus forever to all the glories of earth and to all thought of self-righteousness. When his eyes were opened again, he saw things in a new light. Everything was different.

But he entered Damascus a blind man, and was led by the hand to the home of a friend with whom he was to lodge. There he remained in deep soul exercise until Ananias came to him with the message, Brother Saul, receive thy sight.

What a wonderful thing! Ananias was a Christian Jew. Saul had been a persecutor of the Christians, and Ananias was one of the very men that Saul had come to arrest, but now he says to him, Saul, my brother. Grace had made them brothers. And Paul said,

The same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Act 22:13-16).

Do not link the expression wash away thy sins simply with baptism. Even though baptism is a picture of the washing away of sin, no sin can be purged by water. Sin is only purged by the precious blood of Christ. But there is a sense in which when Paul was baptized, his past was all washed away. He had been a bitter hater of the name of the Lord Jesus, but when he went down into the water of baptism, all that disappeared. He came forth not to be a persecutor but a preacher of the gospel of the grace of God. The past was gone. Henceforth he walked in newness of life.

Then Paul skipped over a number of years, and explained why he had to give himself to the work among the Gentiles. He was told to leave Jerusalem because the Jews would not believe his testimony. However Paul thought, Surely, Lord, they will believe; they will see the wonderful change that has taken place. But when men have made up their minds, they are hard to change: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. And so the Lord said in essence, No, Paul, you are not the one to make them believe. I have another work for you among the Gentiles.

As soon as that hated word Gentiles came from his lips, there was a riot and that Jewish crowd began to throw dust into the air and to cast off their clothes. They cried: Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live. The chief captain had to come down and rescue him again and take him into the castle to get him out of their hands. What a terrible thing religious prejudice is, and what a wonderful thing it is for a man or woman to have an open mind and be ready to examine themselves and be taught of God!

As they were leading Paul away, the captain commanded the soldiers to scourge him, which was a common practice in those days. But Paul turned to the centurion and said, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? It was the practice of the Roman government to permit one method of dealing with those who did not have full Roman citizenship, and another for those who did. Among those rights guaranteed to a free-born Roman citizen, or one who had paid a certain sum of money to purchase his citizenship, was the right to be tried in court without scourging. So as they were about to scourge the apostle Paul, he stood on his right as a Roman citizen.

I believe there is a lesson for us in that. Sometimes we are told that because Christians are heavenly citizens, they have no responsibility whatever as to citizenship here on earth. We have even heard it said that inasmuch as one cannot be a citizen of two countries at the same time here on earth, so one cannot be a citizen of Heaven and a citizen of earth at the same time. But this certainly does not follow. Since it was right for Paul to claim Roman citizenship in order not to suffer scourging, then it was also incumbent on him to fulfill the responsibilities of that citizenship. And this is true of any citizen of any country in this world. In other words, if I am to have certain protection as a citizen, I owe it to my country to act accordingly when it comes to fulfilling my responsibilities. It is true 1 am primarily a citizen of Heaven, but I am also a citizen of whatever country to which I belong on earth by natural relationship. So I am to be loyal to my government, pay my taxes, and to accept even military responsibilities if I am subject to them. It would be unthinkable that one would be entitled to claim protection from a country if he did not loyally respond to the rightful demands of its government.

So when the centurion heard that Paul was a Roman citizen, he went and told the chief captain saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came and asked him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He had not suspected anything of the kind. Paul said, Yea. The chief captain answered in effect, Well, it cost me a great deal to obtain this freedom. Paul answered, But I was free born. That is, Pauls father was a Roman citizen, and so although Paul was a Jew of Tarsus, he himself was born a Roman citizen, and as such had all a citizens rights and liberties. So those that would have examined Paul withdrew from him. However the chief captain, anxious to know just what crime Paul was supposed to have committed, loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Act 22:10

Choice of Professions-the Capabilities of the Christian Ministry.

I. Who can overstate the capabilities of the Christian ministry? I know that preaching may be a very poor thing; a form to the speaker, and therefore a weariness to the hearer. With many sermons are a very byword of dulness. But depend upon it, preaching, however it may fail of its effect, has every possible chance still given to it. The machinery is ready for use; it needs but the hand to move, but the spirit to animate it. There is stillness, there is patience, there is expectation, in many there is desire too, a hungering and thirsting after edification, to which it ought to be a delight to minister, which it is a sin of sins wilfully to disappoint. Let more men of thought and culture, more men of mark and power, above all, more men of purpose and devotion, give themselves to the work, and one who knows something of our town and something of our country congregations may be listened to when he promises that such preaching shall never lack attention, that such preaching shall never lose its labour.

II. Well may the Apostle’s question sound in our ears, “Who is sufficient for these things?” Is it indeed so, that any man of vigorous mind or of ample knowledge may at once transfer himself to the ministry? Is nothing wanted but vigour? nothing but a humane care for others? nothing but a disinterested aim and a willingness to forgo ease and honour? Must there not be something yet beyond these things, if a man would make full proof of his ministry? Yes; there is one thing on which if we dwell not it must be because its necessity is obvious: a true faith in God through Christ, a real devotion to Him, and a life cleansed, consecrated by His undwelling Spirit.

C. J. Vaughan, University Sermons, p. 17.

References: Act 22:16.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 57. Act 22:21-23.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 184. Act 22:22.-E. White, Ibid., vol. xviii., p. 280. Act 23:11.-J. H. Hitchens, Ibid., vol. xiii., p. 203; W. P. Lockhart, Ibid., vol. xvi., p. 264; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 43. Act 23:30.-Ibid., vol. ii., p. 99. Act 24:5.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii., No. 1632; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 324. Act 24:15.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 66. Act 24:16.-A. W. Hare, The Alton Sermons, p. 249; Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 71.; L. Campbell, Some Aspects of the Christian Ideal, p. 29. Act 24:24.-Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 119. Act 24:24, Act 24:25.-M. Nicholson, Communion with Heaven, p. 36.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 22

1. The Address of the Apostle (Act 22:1-21).

2. The Answer from the Mob, and Pauls Appeal to His Roman citizenship (Act 22:22-30).

What a scene it was! On the stairs, midway between the temple-court and the fortress, stood the Apostle in chains, his person showing the effects of the beating he had received. Around him were the well-armed Roman soldiers, and below the multitude, with up-turned faces, still wildly gesticulating and only becoming more silent when they heard the first words from Pauls lips in the Hebrew tongue.

He relates his great experience. They were impatient listeners; the storm broke with the word Gentiles. Another great tumult resulted and the many voices demanded that such a fellow should not live. It was a scene of utmost confusion.

The chief captain seems to have been ignorant of the Aramaic dialect. He gave orders that Paul be now removed into the castle itself, and be examined by scourging so that he might find out why they cried so against him. He was led away, and everything made ready for the cruel treatment, when the prisoner spoke: Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? The centurion reported this to the chiliarch, the chief officer, who at once appeared on the scene. When he discovered that Paul was indeed a Roman by birth, they left their hands off of his person, and even the chiliarch was afraid. It was a highly illegal act to bind a Roman.

Not a few had pointed to this as a prominent failure in the career of the Apostle. According to these critics he made a grave mistake when he pleaded his Roman citizenship; he should have been silent and taken the unjust and cruel treatment without a murmur. If some of these harsh critics of the beloved Apostle were placed in the same condition, what would they do? As one has truly said: It is easy to be a martyr in theory, and such are seldom martyrs in practice. He had a perfect right to tell the ignorant officers of the law who he was, and thus prevent a flagrant and cruel transgression of the law. And yet his conduct in Philippi was far different. Why did he not announce his Roman citizenship there? The power of the Spirit rested then upon him; it is different here.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

64. PAUL’S DEFENCE OF THE FAITH

Act 22:1-30

Acts 22 opens with Paul standing before an angry religious mob. Bound with chains like a dangerous criminal, he beckoned to the people with his hand and got their attention (Act 21:40). Then, he gave a solemn and powerful defense of the faith. Speaking in calm, conciliatory terms in the Hebrew tongue, Paul addressed these angry Jews as brethren. Though they were not his brethren in any spiritual sense, they were in a natural sense. Paul spoke to them as he did because he wanted to calm their tempers and incline them to listen to what he had to say. In that, he was successful (Act 22:1-2).

Take special notice of the simplicity of Paul’s language as you read this chapter. Though he was a very well trained intellectual, capable of fetching arguments and illustrations from history, tradition, philosophy, literature, logic, and theological orthodoxy, though he was capable of using poetic imagery, oratorical eloquence, and stunning imagination, he carefully avoided doing so (1Co 2:4-5). In this dramatic moment, the great apostle to the Gentiles simply told the story of his conversion. He told his hearers, in the simplist language possible, what God had done for him by his almighty, free grace in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the way the gospel ought always to be preached. And that is the way we ought to witness to men. The very best defence of the faith is the testimony of men and women who have experienced the transforming power of God’s saving grace in Christ and know it. To be a good preacher, a man must simply tell what he knows. To be a good witness for Christ, saved sinners must simply tell other sinners what they know (Joh 9:25). Three spiritual lessons are clearly set before us in this chapter.

First, A PERSON MAY BE VERY RELIGIOUS AND YET BE LOST (Act 22:1-5). It is entirely possible for a person to be well learned in the letter of Holy Scripture, consecrated and devoted to the point of self-denial, and very zealous toward God without knowing God. The angry mob Paul was addressing was a mob of zealous religionists who did not know God. In Act 22:3-5, Paul told them that before God saved him he was just like them – “As ye all are this day.” He was born and reared in a strictly orthodox Jewish family. “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.” He had a religious pedigree that was unrivalled (Php 3:4-6). His mother and father were respected, loyal members of the synagogue. He had been religious all his life. But grace does not run in blood lines. Grace does not come by natural decent (Joh 1:11-13). Paul was very well trained in the letter of the law too. “Brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law.” He knew the Scriptures. He was strictly moral. His life was an example of moral and religious purity. He was a Pharisee who lived such a good life that he even made other Pharisees look impure! Paul was raised in religion and raised to be religious. But he did not know God, though he was sure he did. Faith cannot be learned. It must be given (Php 1:29). Salvation is not the result of training, but of revelation (2Co 4:5-6). Moreover, Paul was devoted, consecrated, and zealous in performing his religious works. He was “zealous toward God.” He was not a sham professor of religion. He did not take the things of God lightly. He gave himself wholeheartedly to the pursuit of his religious profession (Act 22:4-5). But grace cannot be earned by religious works (Rom 3:20; Rom 11:6; Eph 2:8-9). Without question, Paul was a religious man from his youth; but he was without God, without Christ, without life, lost in the world (Eph 2:12). In spite of his religion, Paul obtained mercy and never lost a sense of amazement at the mercy he had obtained (1Ti 1:12-17). It may be that as you read these lines you are made to realize that you are like Paul – religious but lost! If you would be saved, you must have something more than religion. You must have Christ (Joh 17:3; Col 1:27; 1Jn 5:11-12).

Second, “SALVATION IS OF THE LORD” (Act 22:6-21). In Act 22:3-5, Paul tells us what he was before God saved him. In Act 22:6-21, he tells us what God did for him and in him by his almighty grace in Christ. From start to finish, the apostle ascribes the whole of his salvation to the grace of God. The essence of everything he says in these verses is – “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1Co 15:10). In these verses, the servant of God tells us four specific things in which he stands as “a pattern to them which should hereafter believe” (1Ti 1:16).

1. Paul was confronted in his path of rebellion by the sovereign Christ, the living Lord (Act 22:6-11). Sooner or later, God will cross the path of every chosen sinner. Notice the words at the beginning of Act 22:6 – “And it came to pass.” What came to pass? God’s eternal purpose of grace toward Paul. How did it come to pass? By God’s gracious hand of providence. Here again we see a marvellous display of God’s providence overruling evil for good. Paul went to Damascus full of hatred for Christ. But Christ brought him down the Damascus road because the time of love had come when Saul of Tarsus must be saved (Eze 16:8). He was not seeking the Lord. The Lord was seeking him. At the time appointed, and in the place appointed, the Lord Jesus revealed himself to this chosen, redeemed sinner in sovereign grace and saving power. Overwhelmed by the dazzling revelation of Christ’s glory, confronted with the claims of Christ’s lordship, called by the personal, particular, and effectual call of the Savior, Saul of Tarsus was broken in repentance.

2. By the instruction of a faithful, gospel preacher, Paul was granted spiritual illumination and given understanding in the gospel (Act 22:12-15). Even in Paul’s case the rule of grace was not broken. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). He had heard the gospel from the lips of Stephen (Act 7:1-59). But now he heard it from Ananias. Though he had learned the letter of the Word at the feet of Gamaliel, Saul was as ignorant of spiritual truth as any barbarian. Spiritual truth must be spiritually revealed and spiritually learned (1Co 2:11-16). And God’s appointed means by which the Holy Spirit teaches spiritual truth is the ministry of the gospel (Eph 4:11-14). The very first thing Ananias taught Paul was GOD’S ELECTING GRACE. “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee.” Then he told him that THE OBJECT OF ELECTION IS SALVATION – “That thou shouldest know his will.” That is his revealed will, the gospel, how that through Christ’s blood atonement God can be just and the Justifier of all who trust his Son (Rom 3:24-26). Next, Ananias told Paul that SALVATION COMES BY KNOWING CHRIST, the sinners’ Substitute, the only Mediator between God and men, by seeing “that Just One” (Joh 17:3). Next, he talked about an EFFECTUAL CALL, “and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.” The only way any sinner can ever know Christ is by the call of his Spirit (1Th 1:4-5; 2Th 2:13-14; Psa 65:4). Finally, Ananias told Paul that God had chosen him “to be HIS WITNESS.” That is the lifelong business of every saved sinner (Isa 44:8; Joh 20:21).

3. Paul then confessed Christ in public, believer’s baptism (Act 22:16). Baptism has no saving, redeeming efficacy; but it is a symbolic picture of the washing away of the believer’s sins by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

4. Being a believer, Paul was led by and walked in the Spirit (Act 22:17-21). Believers are men and women whose lives are ruled by Jesus Christ through the indwelling power and grace of God the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9-16).

Third, in Act 22:22-30, the Holy Spirit once more shows us that THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD IS AN OFFENCE TO UNREGENERATE MEN. The message of grace which Paul preached to these religious people, his testimony of the grace he had experienced in Christ, enraged them. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone always infuriates lost, religious people, but the saints of God rejoice in it (1Co 1:22-24).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

brethren: Act 7:2, Act 13:26, Act 23:1, Act 23:6, Act 28:17

my: Greek all, Act 19:33, Act 24:10, Act 25:8, Act 25:16, Act 26:1, Act 26:2, Act 26:24, Luk 12:11, Luk 21:14, Rom 2:15, 1Co 9:3, 2Co 7:11, 2Co 12:19, Phi 1:7, Phi 1:17, 2Ti 4:16, 1Pe 3:15

Reciprocal: 1Sa 30:23 – my brethren Mat 23:9 – call Mar 5:19 – Go home Act 1:16 – Men Act 13:15 – Ye men Act 13:16 – give Act 15:13 – Men Act 18:14 – when Act 22:5 – the brethren Rom 1:20 – without Phi 1:12 – that 2Ti 2:25 – instructing

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

ST. PAULS DEFENCE

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.,

Act 22:1

We recall the scene on the stairs mentioned in the last chapter. The excited crowd, the crush, so great that the soldiers had to carry St. Paul, the people following, shouting Away with him! Lysias, the captain, was perplexeddid not know how to act, because no distinct charge had been brought against the apostle (Act 22:30). But on the way to the castle St. Paul spoke to the captain saying who he was. He asked that he might speak; leave was granted and St. Paul made his defence.

I. St. Pauls defence.Notice how tenderly he begins his speech (Act 22:1).

(a) He told them about himself.By birth and education he was a Jew. Born at Tarsus, and brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. Taught after the manner of the law, was for a time a persecutor of the Christians, as the priests and elders could bear him witness, and from whom he received authority to carry on his designs against the brethren.

(b) The story of his conversion.He then told them the story of his conversion (Act 22:6-11), how the great change in him was brought about. [See Second Outline.]

(c) How he became a Christian. Being stricken with blindness, he was unable to do anything for himself. In his distress, Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews, was sent to his assistance (Act 22:12-16), by whom he was baptized and received into the Church. By a Jew, whom the Lord had sent to him. It was the God of our fathers Who had called him to be His witness unto all men.

(d) His call to be an apostle. The apostle now comes to the most difficult part of his subject. Had told them about his conversion and reception into the Church. Proceeds to tell them how he received the call to apostleship, and his mission to the Gentiles (Act 22:17-21). The message came to him in Jerusalem, while worshipping in the temple, and from the Lord Himself. Up to this point the people listened with patience. But when he declared that he had been sent on his mission to the Gentiles by the Lord, the storm broke forth with greater violence (Act 22:22). Again rose the cry, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

II. Imprisoned. All this was very puzzling to Lysias, the chief captain. He could judge only of the address by its effects. The sudden outcry and gestures of hatred by which it was met revived his old suspicions, and he concluded that St. Paul must be a dangerous offender against the state. He was taken to the castle and scourged, but his Roman citizenship saved him and he was released.

III. Observe:

(a) St. Paul, apparently without a friend in the angry mob, which seemed eager for his death, retains complete self-possession and calmness. It was not the first time he had faced violent crowds: they had no terrors for him.

(b) His wise and happy choice of words. St. Pauls aim was to win his countrymen for Christ. To this end, he was particular about what some persons would consider minor points. He spoke in the language they liked, and he was respectful in his manner. The effect was remarkable. The Jews were at once quiet and attentive.

John Palmer.

Illustrations

(1) Josephus tells us that the Egyptian referred to by Lysias was one of the many impostors of the time, who gave himself out as a prophet, and advanced at the head of a large army as far as the Mount of Olives, where he was defeated by Felix. Though he managed to escape with a portion of his followers, efforts were made for his apprehension, and Lysias seems to have concluded that nothing but the discovery of this impostor could have caused such an uproar. This, however, would be a political matter, to be judged according to Roman law, and the chief captain orders the apostle to be taken into the castle for further examination.

(2) The course of instruction which a Rabbi had to undergo consisted entirely of the study of the Scriptures and the comments of masters upon them. The words of the Scriptures and the sayings of the wise were committed to memory and discussed. St. Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel much which was of great moment in his subsequent career. In the synagogues his knowledge of the Scriptures enabled him to adduce proofs from an authority which his hearers acknowledged to be supreme. Besides, St. Paul was the great theologian of Christianity and the principal writer of the New Testament. The new grew out of the old; the one the prophecy, the other the fulfilment. But it required a mind not only saturated with Christianity, but with the Old Testament, to bring this out; and the apostle quotes from all partsthe Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmswith equal facility.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

IN ALL THAT happened to Paul in Jerusalem it is not difficult to discern the hand of God controlling behind the scenes. Though the city was in an uproar no one struck a fatal blow until sufficient time had elapsed for the chief captain to intervene. Then the fact of Paul addressing him in Greek created the favourable impression which led to the permission to address the riotous crowds from the stairs of the castle. Then Pauls choice of Hebrew for his speech led to a complete silence and attention for what he had to say.

It is rather remarkable that we have two full accounts of the conversion of Cornelius in the Acts. In Act 10:1-48, Luke records it as an historian; then in Act 11:1-30, he records how Peter related it. In Act 15:1-41, we have a very short third account of how Peter referred to it in the council of Jerusalem. Again we have three accounts of Pauls conversion. In Act 9:1-43, Luke records it as an historian; in Act 22:1-30, he records how Paul himself related it to his own people, and in Act 26:1-32, how he related it to Gentile potentates. Both conversions were epoch-making and of the greatest significance. In the one case it was the definite and formal calling of Gentiles by the Gospel to the same blessings as Jews and on the same terms; in the other it was the calling of the arch-persecutor to be the chief instrument for the carrying of the Gospel to the Gentile world.

As we read the account in Act 22:1-30, we cannot but see the Divinely-given skill with which Paul spoke. He began by stating what he had been in his early days, when his manner of life was altogether in accordance with their thoughts. He was perfect as to his pedigree, his education, his zeal, and his hatred of the Christians. Then came an intervention from heaven which was clearly an act of God. Now every true conversion is the result of an act of God, yet it usually comes to pass through some human instrument and the Divine act is only recognized by faith. In Pauls case there was no human instrument, but rather something quite supernatural, which appealed to both eye and ear-a great light and a voice of power- so as to cast him prostrate to the ground. He tells the story in such a way as to impress his hearers with the fact that the change in him, which so offended them, had been wrought by God.

The voice that arrested him was the voice of Jesus, and here it is that we discover that the full sentence uttered from heaven was, I am Jesus OF NAZARETH, whom thou persecutest. The two words are not inserted in Act 9:1-43, nor do they appear when he speaks to Gentiles in chapter 26, but here speaking to Jews, they were full of tremendous significance. They had tacked those words on to His name as a slur and a reproach; and now Jesus of Nazareth is in heaven!

From this let us accept the warning not to divide up the names and titles of our Lord in any hard and fast way, though it is very helpful to discern the significance of each. We might have expected Him to say, I am the One who was Jesus of Nazareth in the days of My flesh; thus relegating that name to His sojourn on earth exclusively. But He did not say, I was, He said, I am. He does not shed His names, for He is one and indivisible.

Though Paul presents his conversion as being a pure act of God, he relates how Ananias was used of God for the restoration of his sight, and to convey to him the call to be a witness, and to be baptized: also he emphasizes the fact that the said Ananias was a devout and well respected member of the Jewish community in Damascus. Notice that Paul was both to see the glorified Saviour and to hear His voice; and of what he saw and heard he was to bear witness. Hence his speaking of the Gospel he preached as the Gospel of the glory of the Christ.

Notice too how baptism and the washing away of sins are connected here, just as they are in Act 2:38, and as they were in Johns baptism. Ananias added, calling on the name of the Lord, which shows that he pointed to Christian baptism and not Johns. Baptism is specially significant in the case of the Jew, which accounts for the prominent place it had on the day of Pentecost and in the case of Paul. These rejectors of Christ must bow their proud heads, and go down symbolically into death as acknowledging His Name. It was the token of their submission to the One whom they had refused, and only thus could their sins be washed away.

Paul then passed on to relate what happened on his first brief visit to Jerusalem, which is mentioned in Act 9:26. No mention is made of this vision in Act 9:1-43, nor in Gal 1:1-24 : we only read of it here. It is remarkable that both the Apostles Peter and Paul should have passed into a trance and seen a vision as to their service in regard to Gentiles-Peter in order that he might break through Jewish custom and open the kingdom to

Gentiles; Paul, in order that he should accept the evangelization of Gentiles as his life-work. In this way it was doubly emphasized that the bringing in of the Gentiles was the deliberate will and purpose of God.

Owing to his past, Paul felt that he was pre-eminently fitted to evangelize his own nation, and ventured to tell the Lord this, only to be told that the Jews would not accept testimony from his lips, and that he was to be sent far hence unto the Gentiles. All this he told to the people, and as one reads the record one feels the convincing power of his words. Did he feel that at least some of his people must be convinced? Yet there stood that word of the Lord, spoken twenty or more years before, They will not receive thy testimony concerning Me; and this had been supported by the special message from the Holy Spirit that he should not go to Jerusalem. At that moment the Lords words were verified. His mention of the Gentiles becoming objects of the Divine mercy stirred his hearers to frenzy. They would not receive his words. They demanded his death with almost uncontrollable violence. When Paul pursued his God-given mission to the Gentiles he was granted the joy of being used to reach the remnant according to the election of grace from his own people; when he turned aside, concentrating his attention upon his own people, his words bore no fruit in blessing.

The unreasoning fury of the people coupled with the use of the Hebrew language evidently baffled the chief captain, and examination under the lash was the recognized way of extorting evidence in those days. The mention by Paul of his Roman citizenship checked this, and under Gods hand it became the occasion of Pauls further testimony before the leading men of his nation. The Sanhedrin was convoked the next day by the chief captains orders.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1

Act 22:1. Paul’s defence was to meet the charge, that he was trying to influence the Jews to disrespect the customs of the Mosaic system.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Pauls Hebrew Speech to the Jewish Crowd in the Temple Court from the steps leading to the Antonia Tower, and the Tumult which succeeded it, 1-23.

Act 22:1. Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. The accurate translation of the Greek word would be simply, Brethren and fathers. It is noticeable that the opening words are the same as those used by Stephen in his great defence before the Sanhedrim (see chap. Act 7:2). Brethren expresses the love Paul bore to his fellow-countrymen the Jews. Fathers seems to recognise the presence of some of the older and more prominent men of the Jerusalem Church, members, perhaps, of the .Sanhedrim, certainly well-known scribes and elders of the Holy City. It has been suggested with some probability, that Brethren and fathers was the received formula in addressing an assembly which included scribes and elders of the people.

Mr. Humphry, in his commentary on the Acts, happily touches on the leading characteristic features of this speech: Though the subject-matter of this speech has been related before, it assumes here a fresh interest from the manner in which it is adapted to the occasion and the audience. The apostle is suspected of disaffection to the Mosaic law. In order to refute this charge, he addresses them in Hebrew; he dwells on his Jewish education, and on his early zeal for the law; he shows how at his conversion he was guided by Ananias, a man devout according to the law, and of good report among the Jews at Damascus, and how he subsequently worshipped in the temple at Jerusalem. So far they listen to him; but he no sooner touches on the promulgation of the gospel among the heathen (Act 22:21) than he is interrupted, and his fate would probably have been the same as Stephens, had he not been under the protection of the Roman captain.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here begins the apostle’s apology, or defensative plea, which he makes for himself before the people at Jerusalem, who, in the foregoing chapter, had so injuriously treated him: In which apologetical narration, we have these particulars observable.

First observe, With what lenity and mildness he bespeaks his cruel and pestilent persecutors, the people of the Jews; he accosts them with titles of respect and honour; Men, brethern, and fathers; not with opprobrious invectives; he doth not render evil for evil, or railing for reviling; he had not so learned Christ, he know how to suffer reproach for the gospel; but to persecute his persecutors with hard names and characters of reproach, was a piece of zeal which St. Paul and the holy sufferers of those times were little acquainted with.

Observe, 2. How the apostle insinuates himself into his auditors, that so he might gain their attention to what was spoken; Men, brethern, and fathers, hear ye, I pray, my defence which I make unto you. There is a lawful and pious insinuation for gaining the attention of our auditors, which the ministers of Christ may and ought to make use of; as the workman that would drive his nail, dips it in oil. We gain our auditors’ attention by courteous and loving compellations: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken.

Observe, 3. The apology or plea itself, in which he sets before them,

1. His extraction, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus.

2. His education, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.

3. His profession, he was zealous towards God; that is, he was one of the sect among the Jews which were called Zealots, and was very strict and exact in the observation of the law,

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Paul’s First Defense

Since his audience was primarily Jewish, Paul addressed them as “Brethren and fathers” ( Act 2:29 ; Act 7:2 ; Act 13:26 ). The defense he wants them to hear is much like verbal arguments one might make in his own behalf in a court of law. Remember, Paul’s accusers had said he taught against the Jews, the law of Moses, the temple and brought Greeks into the temple, thereby defiling the holy place ( Act 21:28 ). In response to their first accusation, the apostle noted he was a Jew. He was born in Tarsus, but he was reared in the city of Jerusalem as a pupil of the highly respected Jewish teacher, Gamaliel. He had been taught the law, which was handed down from the Jewish fathers, in a most precise way. In fact, he had become a zealot for God, just as had his accusers. His zeal had reached the point where he persecuted those following Christ’s way by binding, imprisoning and ultimately assisting in their deaths. As witnesses to his zeal, Paul cited the high priest and council of the elders. The apostle had received letters from them to give him authority to go to Damascus to bring Christians from that city in chains to Jerusalem to be punished ( Act 22:1-5 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 22:1-2. Men, brethren, and fathers Of whatsoever age, rank, or circumstance of life you are; hear ye my defence Which ye could not hear before for the tumult. And when they heard that he spake in their vulgar tongue, then called the Hebrew dialect, they kept the more silence Were the more disposed, numerous as the assembly was, to hearken to him attentively.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

XXII: 1, 2. (1) Men, brethren, and fathers, hear my defense, which I now make to you. (2) And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, they kept the greater quiet. It is happily remarked by Mr. Howson, that, had he spoken in Greek, the majority of his hearers would have understood him; but, the sound of the holy tongue in that holy place fell like a calm upon the troubled waters. It was a mark of respect for Jewish nationality which they were not prepared to expect from Paul; and the result was, that the silence, which was only general at the waving of his hand, became universal at the utterance of his first sentence.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Acts Chapter 22

He departs therefore to Jerusalem; and when there, he goes to the house of James, and all the elders assemble. Paul relates to them the work of God among the Gentiles. They turn to their Judaism, of which the multitude were full, and, while rejoicing in the good that was wrought of God by the Spirit, they wish Paul to shew himself obedient to the law. The believers in Jerusalem must needs come together on the arrival of Paul, and their prejudices with regard to the law must be satisfied. Paul has brought himself into the presence of mans exigencies: to refuse compliance with them would be to say that their thoughts about him were true; to act according to their desire was to make a rule, not of the guidance of the Spirit in all liberty of love, but of the ignorant and prejudiced condition of these Jewish believers. It is that Paul was there, not according to the Spirit as an apostle, but according to his attachment to these former things. One must be above the prejudices of others, and free from their influence, to be able to condescend to them in love.

Being there, Paul can hardly do other than satisfy their demands. But the hand of God is in it. This act throws him into the power of his enemies. Seeking to please the believing Jews, he finds himself in the lions mouth, in the hands of the Jews who were adversaries to the gospel. It may be added that we hear nothing more of the Christians of Jerusalem. They had done their work. I have no doubt that they accepted the alms of the Gentiles.

The whole city being moved and the temple shut, the commander of the band comes to rescue Paul from the Jews who wished to kill him, taking him however into custody himself, for the Romans were used to these tumults, and heartily despised this nation beloved of God, but proud and degraded in their own condition. Nevertheless Paul commands the respect of the captain of the band by his manner of addressing him, and he permits him to speak to the people. To the chief captain Paul had spoken in Greek; but, always ready to win by the attentions of love, and especially when the loved though rebellious people were in question, he speaks to them in Hebrew; that is, in their ordinary language called Hebrew. He does not enlarge upon what the Lord said revealing Himself to him, but he gives them a particular account of his subsequent interview with Ananias, a faithful Jew and esteemed of all. He then enters on the point which necessarily characterised his position and his defence. Christ had appeared to him, saying, They will not receive thy testimony at Jerusalem. I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. Blessed be God! it is the truth; but why tell it to those very persons who, according to his own words, would not receive his testimony? The only thing which gave authority to such a mission was the Person of Jesus, and they did not believe in it.

In his testimony to the people the apostle laid stress in vain upon the Jewish piety of Ananias: genuine as it might be, it was but a broken reed. Nevertheless it was all, except his own. His discourse had but one effect-to bring out the violent and incorrigible hatred of this unhappy nation to every thought of grace in God, and the unbounded pride which indeed went before the fall that crushed them. The chief captain, seeing the violence of the people, and not at all understanding what was going on, with the haughty contempt of a Roman, orders Paul to be bound and scourged to make him confess what it meant. Now Paul was himself a Roman citizen, and born such, while the chief captain had purchased that freedom. Paul quietly makes this fact known, and they who were about to scourge him withdraw. The chief captain was afraid because he had bound him; but, as his authority was concerned in it, he leaves him bound. The next day he looses him and brings him before the council, or Sanhedrim, of the Jews. The people, not merely their rulers, had rejected grace.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

1-16. Paul now proceeds to vindicate himself by relating his experience, giving his Cilician nativity and his education in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, the champion theologian, his identity with the patriotic institutions, his intense zeal for the God of Abraham and Moses, his faithful and heroic adhesion to the so-called loyal wing of Judaism, stringently persecuting all the Jews who had gone off in the so called Nazarene heresy, not only doing his utmost to exterminate the very name of Jesus at Jerusalem, but had gone away to the Syrian capital that he might exterminate the rising hope of the disciples in that city, his wonderful conversion by the revelation of the glorified Savior to his soul, like a meridian sunburst eclipsing mortal vision and prostrating him on the ground, his comrades leading him blind and miserable into Damascus, where under the ministry of Ananias, the Nazarene, he is wonderfully and miraculously converted.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 22:1. Men, brethren, and fathers; that is, men of mixed nations assembled at the feast. The persecutors had said, men of Israel, help. Brethren, religious persons of the stock of Israel. Fathers, aged men, elders and priests. Stephens address was in similar terms. Act 7:2. The words indicate innocence and confidence; for culprits durst not be so bold.

Hear ye my defence: , my apology, my plea for my religion: this is a purer word than defence. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Minutius Felix, and Tertullian have each written an apology for the christian religion: the two last are productions of incomparable eloquence, and the four are well translated by Mr. Reeves.

Act 22:2. When they heard that he did not speak Greek, as the Hellenists from Grecian countries, they kept the more silence. He spake in the vulgar tongue, that all might understand; a mixture, says Beza, of Hebrew and Syrian words.

Act 22:3. I am verily a man which am a jew, born in Tarsus educated under Gamaliel, in this city; and zealous towards God, as you all are. By consequence, I am not to be confounded either with the leaders of sedition, or with the opposers of the law. A bold stroke of eloquence, which by a single word rebutted calumny.

Act 22:4. And I persecuted this way unto the death, He avoids the word Nazarene, as offensive to their ears. In like manner, Cicero, in his oration for Milo, avoids the words kill, or murder.

Act 22:6. As I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon. This city, whose walls are about four miles in circumference, lies a hundred and fourteen miles north-east of Jerusalem, and about the same distance from Antioch. Those officers therefore had horses; by rising early, which is always the case with oriental travellers, they would easily approach Damascus about noon.

Suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. Thus in ancient times the Holy One covered the heavens with his glory, and the earth was full of his praise. The same God who gave the Hebrews their religion, called and converted Paul to the faith of Jesus, by the manifestation of his glory, and by his voice from heaven. On seeing this light, the whole cavalcade fell prostrate to the earth, for what is man, a worm of the dust, that he should fight against God? Act 26:14.

Act 22:7-8. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? A plain question, a question which the Lord puts to every persecutor. Why did the jews passionately forget to put it to themselves? Paul, in Jerusalem, had a hundred reasons, hearsay reasons which he had heard of the pharisees, for persecuting the church. Now he is silent, he is astounded, he trembles; yea more, he saw the holy and the Just One, and asked, who art thou Lord? The same voice replied, I am Jesus: , the Nazarene, whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee, like the restive bullock, to kick against the goads. What, and is the Nazarene whom I have been execrating, and whose servants I have been killing, the Lord of glory, the Holy One of Israel, and the Prince of the kings of the earth! Alas, alas for me! Lord, what shall I do? It appears from chap. 26., that more was said than Luke has here recorded.

Act 22:14. The God of our fathers hath chosen thee; for so is his sovereign pleasure in calling whom he pleases to the work of the ministry. Mar 3:13. That thou shouldest know his will, by the mystery of revelation, during the three days he lay deprived of sight. And see that Just One, the Holy One of Israel, the God of Bethel, the Jehovah at the burning bush; texts which the fathers by common consent refer to Christ. Vide Bulli Defen. Tirinus on 1Co 9:1, Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord, has these words. Quia Christum corporaliter mihi apparentum vidi, because I saw Christ appear to me in his human presence. Paul saw the Lord a second time in a trance while he was praying in the temple, saying, get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me: Act 22:18. Paul, both by view, and by this vision, was thus constituted the ambassador of Christ, and plenipotentiary of heaven to the gentiles. That word, the gentiles, Act 22:21, they marked with the bitterest signs of indignation.

Act 22:23. They cried out, stopping Paul in the midst of his speech with vociferations; meanwhile the baser sort threw dust in the air, by way of execration, while others pulled off their clothes to crush him at once with stones. But Lysias, prompted by an influence he might not know, hurried him back to the castle. Father forgive them, for they knew not that Paul was the brightest gem of Israels sons. But why all this bad feeling against the gentiles? Were not all the families of the earth comprised in Abrahams covenant? Had not the prophets in succession augured greater glory to the Messiah from the conversion of the gentiles than from the jews? Nay, had they not foretold the obduration of the jews, and the election of the gentiles? Has not Cyprian, in his book against the jews, collected nearly three hundred texts predictive of their conversion? Does not Eusebius, as most other fathers, tread in the same path?

Act 22:25. Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? This privilege saved Paul from another punishment by the Roman lictors. See the remarks on chap. 9.

REFLECTIONS.

Where shall we begin; how shall we enter on the subject of this chapter. The cloud of glory in Pauls conversion, seems equally luminous on every side. While we pause, the Lord opens the way by showing how mercy waited for Paul in the road, when he was come nigh to Damascus; not while he was near Jerusalem; else he had been taken back to the pharisees, who would have opposed the work of the Lord on his mind. How sweetly does heaven, as in the seasons of the year, time the peculiar work of his Holy Spirit.

The conversion of this high spirited man, and notorious persecutor, was effected by a discovery of the glorious person of Christ, as the Holy and Just One, and as the Nazarene. How else could he believe, unless he had seen; how shall men believe on him of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear without a preacher? St. Paul took the same ground in writing to the Hebrews that the Lord had taken with him: he sets before them in chap. 1., eight arguments to demonstrate the Deity of Christ, as the Son of God. This is the pillar and ground of truth; the mystery of godliness God manifest in the flesh. 1Ti 3:15-16.

The next procedure of the Lord with this first of rebels was, conviction of sin. Why persecutest thou me? Why art thou mad against the Nazarenes, and resolved that no jew shall live unless he be of thy mind? What evils have those people done to thee, or to thy temple at Jerusalem. Do the criminal courts condemn men on ex parte evidence? I, the Judge, ask of thee a reason? I, the Lord of glory, am that Nazarene whom thou blasphemest, and whose servants thou accountest as sheep for the slaughter. It is still the Lords method to demonstrate sin by the glory of the law. He convicted, with much urbanity, the young ruler of loving his lands more than God. He covered the woman of Samaria with shame because of concupiscence; and Peter boldly charged home on the jews the murder of the Lord of glory by wicked hands. What is preaching worth, if it do not arraign the guilty. Who but the sick will apply to the physician?

Pauls conversion was accompanied with prayer. Lord, said he, what wouldst thou have me to do? He continued in prayer and supplication for three days and three nights, as the Lord himself attests. Behold, he prayeth. What else can a sinner in distress do, but cry out of the depths, and plead the promises, and wait for the light and the salvation of God?

The Lord sent him, wounded with the sword of the Spirit, to the church for cure and for comfort. Go into the city, and it shall be told thee. So he did not weep and pray in anguish and despair. Let all persons convinced and touched under the word, run to the saints for consolation. They are the nursing fathers of the weak and tender lambs. The joy and delight of christian fellowship was to him a heaven upon earth.

St. Pauls conversion was perfected by the pardon of sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, as we shall presently read. These are always joined in the scriptures, and we must not divide them. Ananias having announced his call of God to the ministry, as Elijah did to Elisha, hastened him to baptism. And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. The Holy Ghost will seal the ordinance by shedding abroad the love of God in thy heart, and filling thee with peace and joy through believing.

And let it be particularly enforced, that the joys of remission are ever connected with hymns of praise to the Redeemer, as is noted on chap. 26., and in Psalms 103.

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

Act 22:1-21. Pauls Speech to the Jews.The opening of the speech is like that of Stephen (Act 7:2). In 2Co 11:22 Paul attests his full membership of the Jewish people, and having lived many years in Palestine he could no doubt speak Aramaic, though his countrymen did not expect it of him.

Act 22:3. at the feet of Gamaliel: Jewish boys sat on the floor at their lessons.Gamaliel: cf. Act 5:34. Some scholars are strongly inclined to put Paul down as a pure Hellenist in his schooling. If he did study with Gamaliel, it was probably immediately before his conversion (Act 11:25*).zealous for God: cf. Gal 1:14.

Act 22:4. this Way: cf. Act 9:2, Gal 1:13; on the High Priests letters cf. Act 9:2. The following narrative has curious differences from that in ch. 9; it was an oft-told tale.

Act 22:6. about noon is a new touch here.

Act 22:7 f. as in ch. 9.

Act 22:9 differs from Act 9:7.

Act 22:14. The knowledge of his vocation, which Paul himself (Gal 1:16) ascribes to Divine revelation, is here communicated to him by Ananias. In Acts 9 Ananias has it imparted to him; here he imparts it to Paul.know his will: cf. Luk 12:47, Rom 2:18.the righteous one: cf. Act 3:14.

Act 22:15. In Act 1:8; Act 1:22 the believers are to be witnesses of the Resurrection; what Paul has seen and heard qualifies him to be so too.

Act 22:16. calling on his name: cf. Act 2:21, Act 9:14.

Act 22:17-21. Pauls call to the Gentile mission is here represented as taking place not as, in Act 9:15 and Act 26:17, at his conversion, but some time after it at Jerusalem. This is not consistent with his own statements in Galatians 1, where his first visit to Jerusalem had no such importance for him; but explains how his call came to be different from that of the first apostles.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

The crowd having been quietened, Paul speaks with fullest respect for those he addresses, and doing so in the Hebrew language, he attracts more serious attention. He has been practically convicted by the crowd without being heard, so that he asks them to hear his defense. Jewish, and born in Tarsus, yet he had spent his earlier years under the instruction of Gamaliel, a renowned teacher of the law, which he calls, the law of our fathers, in which he was well grounded and taught, being zealous toward God, as he credits them with being also.

His zeal was well proven in his persecuting the followers of Jesus “unto death,” taking both men and women prisoner, to be tried and punished at Jerusalem. He reminds them that the high priest and all the elders could bear witness to this. They had given him letters to Damascus authorizing him to arrest Christians and bring them to Jerusalem. Nearing Damascus on his journey, he tells them, he fell to the ground when a great light from heaven encircled him, followed by a voice, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” How could he possibly ignore this voice? He asked, “Who art Thou, Lord?” and received the astounding answer, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” His companions saw the light and heard someone speaking to him (Act 9:7), but evidently did not understand what was said, which may be the explanation of the words, “they heard not the voice.”

How perfectly normal then that he should ask the Lord what he should do. But the Lord did not give him instructions independently of His own followers. He is told to go into Damascus and there he would be told what he was appointed to do. Blinded by the light for the time, he needed the help of others to find his way. He does not mention here that he was three days in this state, but speaks of the visit of Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews. By God’s clear direction he came to Saul and at his word Saul received his sight back again.

The message he brought was most striking too: “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee.” How could he escape the reality of this call of God? This was no mere visionary impression Saul had received. Rather, God had intervened so decidedly in his history that this was impossible to be ignored. This choice of God involved three vital matters to affect the soul of Saul himself: first, the knowledge of God’s will; secondly, that he should actually see “that Just One,” the Lord Jesus; and thirdly, that he should hear the voice of His mouth. God had special work for him to do, for which no-one else was chosen: therefore he would be specially prepared. He was to be a particular witness of God to all men of what he had seen and heard. The reality of this had wonderful effect in enabling him to continue steadfastly through every kind of adversity, declaring the truth he knew.

Ananias further instructed him to be baptized to wash away his sins. This has nothing to do with God’s cleansing of sins by the blood of Christ, which is a vital, eternal matter for all who receive Christ as Savior. But it is rather a public washing away of those sins of which Saul had been guilty in publicly opposing the blessed name of the Lord Jesus. That is, in the eyes of men he would wash away his sins by baptism, not in the eyes of God, for this is only by the blood of Christ. In baptism he was taking a public stand contrary to his former course.

Verse 17 of course took place a good deal later. Jews would understand God’s intervening by a trance to speak to a man: they even sought such signs (1Co 1:22). The message of the Lord Jesus to Paul however was most decisive, as he tells them: he was told immediately to leave Jerusalem, for the Jews would not listen to him. However, he was using this to seek to persuade them that though he had been told to leave, his own earnest desire was for the pure blessing of Israel; therefore he records his entreating the Lord, reminding Him of his previous enmity against Christians and of his prominence in the martyrdom of Stephen. Could Paul possibly think that, though his arguments would not change the Lord’s mind, yet by reporting them he might change Israel’s mind? This does show his love for his nation, but not a full subjection to his Lord. As he says, the Lord’s answer was a summary command, “Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”

Just as the Lord had stopped Paul’s arguments, so Israel abruptly stops him in his testimony. He finds that the Lord’s words were absolutely true: the Jews would not receive his testimony. Having rejected his Lord, they reject him too, crying out for his death, demonstrating in vicious hostility. The chief captain then has him brought inside the castle. He could not understand by all Paul’s words why the Jews were so inflamed, and thought they must have a more intelligent reason. He expected therefore that this might be forced from Paul by scourging him. Of course this was thorough injustice, but it has been practiced by many since that time.

With foreigners the Romans were not so careful about being just, but Paul knew that it was not lawful for them to scourge a Roman citizen before he was found guilty: he appealed to the centurion on this ground, and the centurion reported this to the chief captain, who was surprised to hear that Paul was a Roman. He himself had had to pay dearly for his citizenship, he says. Paul answered that his own citizenship was acquired by birth. Thus the scourging, which would have accomplished nothing anyway, was avoided. The chief captain too was apprehensive about the fact of his having bound Paul without evidence of wrong-doing. However, at least Paul’s safety was secured in this way.

The next day, in order to find out what clear accusation the Jews had against Paul, the chief captain ordered the chief priests and the Jewish council to appear before him, and brought Paul in to face them.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Paul’s speech in his defense 22:1-21

The speeches in Acts so far have been mainly in the form of deliberative rhetoric, the purpose of which is to make people change their minds and lives in view of the future. In chapters 22-26, however, the speeches are forensic rhetoric, designed mainly for defensive and apologetic purposes. [Note: See ibid., pp. 660-61, for further discussion.]

Paul needed to defend himself against the charge that he had been disloyal to his people, the Mosaic Law, and the temple (cf. Act 21:28). His devout Jewish audience was especially skeptical of Paul since he was a Hellenistic Jew who fraternized with Gentiles. This is an excellent example of the Holy Spirit giving the Lord’s servant the words to say on the spur of the moment, as Jesus had promised He would do (Mat 10:16-20; Mar 13:9-11). All of Paul’s speeches from here on in Acts concern his defense.

"It [the rest of Acts] is a mixture of travel narratives and defense speeches and it covers a full quarter of Acts, indicating its importance." [Note: Bock, Acts, p. 654.]

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

Paul addressed his audience warmly and respectfully in the same terms Stephen had used (Act 7:2). Using the Aramaic language had the desired effect. The Jews paid even closer attention.

"The real crime of S. Paul was preaching to the Gentiles, and the real heresy his gospel of equality of privilege. Hence he defends himself by asserting (1) his loyalty to Israel, and (2) that his preaching was simply obedience to a divine command." [Note: Rackham, p. 407.]

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