Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:2
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
2. And Hebrew tongue ] The beckoning with the hand (Act 21:40) had procured silence enough for the Apostle’s first words to be heard, and now they caught the sound of their own dialect.
they kept the more silence ] The noun in the original refers not only to peace from cries and shouts, but to general quietness, such as would be produced by refraining from all movements. It expresses a very high degree of quietness. Rev. Ver. has “ they were the more quiet.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Hebrew tongue – See the notes on Act 21:40.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 22:2-3
And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue.
Pauls method of quieting the mob
The Hebrew language was their dearest language. It touched them at the point of sympathy. Paul had a new hold on them when he spoke in that language. He knew that, and therefore he chose that language in speaking to them. Paul showed his wisdom and showed a kindly, loving spirit in the very words of his choice at this time. It is always better to choose points of agreement, rather than of difference, in any attempt to reach others for their good, or for the cause of truth. Yet there are those who will choose the points of difference as a starting point in such an effort, and then will count themselves martyrs when they experience the results of a conflict which they have needlessly brought about. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
Preachers should speak intelligibly
When the people heard Paul speak in an intelligible language, they became quiet and attentive. Many preachers are to blame for the inattention of their audiences. They speak affectedly, or above the comprehension of the people. A preacher whose object is to edify, should apply himself to present the truth in the simplest and most comprehensible manner, and to address himself to the heart. The teaching of Jesus is the most complete and blessed example. (Apostolic Pastor.)
I am verily a man which am a Jew.
The value of personal experience
A mans experience is an element of power in his teaching and he has a right to make use of it for good. Whether he thinks the same now as formerly, or has changed his opinions, he speaks with added force to his hearers, when he shows them that he knows all about their way of looking at things, from having been in their place himself. What do you know about it? is a very common way of sneering at a wisemans wise counsel against conduct wholly at variance with his present course of living. Ive been through it all myself, is a fair answer to that sneer. Paul understood the value of this sort of response; and it is well for us all to have it in mind also. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.–
The advantages of a Rabbinical education to Paul
The course of instruction which a rabbi had to undergo was lengthened and peculiar. It consisted entirely of the study of the Scriptures and the comments of the sages and masters upon them. The words of Scripture and the sayings of the wise were committed to memory; discussions were carried on about disputed points; and by a rapid fire of questions, which the scholars were allowed to put as well as the masters, the wits of the students were sharpened and their views enlarged. The outstanding qualities of Pauls intellect, which were conspicuous in his subsequent life–his marvellous memory, the keenness of his logic, the superabundance of his ideas, and his original way of taking up every subject–first displayed themselves in this school, and excited, we may well believe, the warm interest of his teacher. He himself learned much here which was of great moment in his subsequent career. Although he was to be specially the missionary of the Gentiles, he was also a great missionary to his own people. In every city he visited where there were Jews he made his first public appearance in the synagogue. There his training as a rabbi secured him an opportunity of speaking, and his familiarity with Jewish modes of thought and reasoning enabled him to address his audiences in the way best fitted to secure their attention. His knowledge of the Scriptures enabled him to adduce proofs from an authority which his hearers acknowledged to be supreme. Besides, he was destined to be the great theologian of Christianity, and the principal writer of the New Testament. Now the New grew out of the Old; the one is in all its parts the prophecy and the other the fulfilment. But it required a mind saturated not only with Christianity, but with the Old Testament, to bring this out; and, at the age when the memory is most retentive, Paul acquired such a knowledge of the Old Testament that everything it contains was at his command: its phraseology became the language of his thinking; he literally writes in quotations, and he quotes from all parts with equal facility–from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Thus was the warrior equipped with the armour and the weapons of the Spirit before he knew in what cause he was to use them. (J. Stalker, D. D.)
Zealous toward God.—
Zeal
I. Its nature–fervour–from a verb signifying to boil. It stands opposed to indifference or lukewarmness. Its object may be good or bad, a person or thing, truth or error. The Jews and Saul were zealous for the law and the tradition of their fathers; and through zeal persecuted the Church.
II. Its criteria.
1. Not.
(1) The object. There can indeed be no holy zeal for sin or error; but there may be an unholy zeal for God and truth, as was the case with Saul.
(2) The energy, or the self-denial and exertions to which it leads: Many unholy men are exceedingly fervid and self-sacrificing.
2. But–
(1) The source.
(a) The source of false zeal is either some selfish interest, as in the ease of the Jews, the Romanists, etc.; or party spirit, national feeling, esprit de corps; or false doctrine, hatred of the truth.
(b) The source of true zeal–i.e., as a Christian grace–is the Holy Spirit, as the Author of all good, together with spiritual apprehension of the excellence of its object, whether God, truth, or the Church.
(2) The concomitants and effects.
(a) False zeal is malignant; true is benevolent. The one is the fervour of the unrenewed; the other of the renewed mind–as illustrated by Jesus and the Jews.
(b) False zeal is proud; true is humble. The one arises from a sense of superiority which it seeks to assert and vindicate; the other from such views of God and things Divine as tend to produce humility.
(c) False zeal is irreverent; true is reverent.
(d) True zeal is connected with a holy life.
III. Its obligation. It is demanded by–
1. The infinite importance of the interests at stake–the glory of God, the progress of truth, the salvation of men. To be unconcerned about these is the greatest sin and peril. God therefore declares His special abhorrence of the cold and lukewarm.
2. Our relations to God and Christ. A child is zealous for its father, a subject for his sovereign, a soldier for his commander, a captive for his redeemer.
3. The fact that zeal is a chief source of spiritual power. This qualification in the absence of others can accomplish wonders.
IV. The means of its cultivation.
1. Avoid all pretence and affectation; all expression of more interest than you feel.
2. Gather warmth by continual intercourse with God, and cherish the influence of His Spirit.
3. Keep your minds filled with the subjects about which you should be zealous, and your attention devoted to them.
4. Remember that zeal being a gift of the Spirit, whatever grieves Him quenches our zeal. (C. Hodge, D. D.)
Zeal analysed
Dr. Bonar tells of a dream he once had. In his dream the angels weighed his zeal, and he was delighted with the result. It reached the maximum, and turned the scale at a hundred. Then they analysed it, and his delight vanished. For (out of the hundred) fourteen parts were pure selfishness, fifteen parts sectarianism, twenty-two parts ambition, twenty-three parts love for man, and twenty-six parts love to God. He awoke from his dream sobered and saddened, but resolved on a new consecration. How much religious zeal (if analysed) would prove even more corrupt! True zeal is consistent: it burns with a steady flame. It is humble: not puffed up nor vaunting itself. It is pure: shunning all evil methods. It is learnt from Christ, who was full of zeal, because He was love itself. Its secret is the love which Christs love kindles in human hearts. Let us seek, then, a zeal which is pure and undefiled, which will endure the searching test of God. (G. H. James.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. When they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue] He had probably been traduced by the Jews of Asia as a mere Gentile, distinguished only by his virulence against the Jewish religion; which virulence proceeded from his malice and ignorance.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Hebrew tongue; the ordinary Hebrew; that which was taken for Hebrew, and spoken by the Hebrews after their return from the captivity, though mixed with the Syriac; as Act 21:40.
They kept the more silence; it being more grateful unto them to hear Paul speak in their mother tongue, especially they having so great a prejudice against all other nations and languages.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. when they heard . . . the Hebrewtongue(See on Ac 21:40).
they kept the moresilenceThey could have understood him in Greek, anddoubtless fully expected the renegade to address them in thatlanguage, but the sound of their holy mother tongue awed them intodeeper silence.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,…. [See comments on Ac 21:40].
they kept the more silence; it being their mother tongue, and which they best understood; and which the captain and the Roman soldiers might not so well under stand; and chiefly because the Hellenistic language was not so agreeable to them, nor the Hellenistic Jews, who spoke the Greek language, and used the Greek version of the Bible; and such an one they took Paul to be, besides his being a Christian; wherefore when they heard him speak in the Hebrew tongue, it conciliated their minds more to him, at least engaged their attention the more to what he was about to say:
and he saith; the Syriac and Ethiopic versions add, “to them”, as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He spake (). Imperfect active, was speaking. See aorist active in 21:40.
They were the more quiet ( ). Literally, The more () they furnished or supplied (second aorist active indicative of ) quietness (, old word, in the N.T. only here and 2Thess 3:12; 1Tim 2:11). Precisely this idiom occurs in Plutarch (Cor. 18) and the LXX (Job 34:29). Knowling notes the fondness of Luke for words of silence (, , ) as in Luke 14:4; Luke 15:26; Acts 11:18; Acts 12:17; Acts 15:12; Acts 21:14; Acts 21:40. It is a vivid picture of the sudden hush that swept over the vast mob under the spell of the Aramaic. They would have understood Paul’s Koine Greek, but they much preferred the Aramaic. It was a masterstroke.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Kept – silence [ ] . Lit., gave quiet.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,” (akousantes de hoti te Hebraidi dialekto prosephonei autois) “And when they heard that he addressed them directly in the Hebrew language;” They expected him to speak to them in the Greek, as they had been led to believe that he had turned heathen, having been seen with Trophimus, a Greek, whom they considered to be an heathen, Act 21:29; Act 21:37.
2) “They kept the more silence:” (mallon paresdon hesuchian) “They showed more quietness,” gave a more respectful hearing, with regards for their sacred language, their mother tongue, Act 21:40. With a wave of the hand he received a silence from the multitude, and with a rolling Hebrew voice he held silence of the thousands for a period of time, Act 11:18; Act 12:17; Act 15:12.
3) “And he saith,) (kai phesin) “And then he spoke out,” as follows – giving an historical sketch of his life from his conversion, as recounted Act 9:1-31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
2. That he spake Hebrew. This is indeed an usual thing, that when men which speak diverse languages are together, we hear those more willingly who speak our own language; but the Jews were moved with another peculiar cause, because they imagined that Paul was offended − (497) with his own kindred, so that he did even hate their tongue, or that he was some rogue which had not so much as learned the speech of that nation whereof he said he came. Now, so soon as they heard their own language, they began to have some better hope. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether Paul spake in the Hebrew or in the Syrian tongue; for we know that the speech of the Jews was corrupt and degenerate after their exile, forasmuch as they had much from the Chaldeans and Syrians. For mine own part, I think, that because he spake as well to the common sort as unto the elders, he used the common speech which was at that day usual. −
(497) −
“
Ex professo infensum,” professedly hostile to.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) They kept the more silence.The opening words had done the work they were meant to do. One who spoke in Hebrew was not likely to blaspheme the sacred Hebrew books. What follows was conceived in the same spirit of conciliation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Hebrew tongue The Jews were bilingual, speaking two languages, Greek and Aramaic, or the then modern Hebrew. The Greek was most prevalent in large towns; and hence, probably, had he spoken Greek, his audience would have understood him. His speaking Aramaic secured the momentary sympathy of the Jews, but lost that of the chiliarch. Could he have spoken both Hebrew and Greek at once, the chiliarch would have learned that Paul’s only crime was favour toward the Gentiles; it would have been rather a merit than an offence to him. We may analyze this speech thus: Paul’s Jewish enmity to Christ, (3-5;) his miraculous conversion, (6-10;) his authentication and baptism by Ananias, (11-16;) his subsequent return to Jerusalem and commission by Jesus, (17-21.)
Among all this bitter audience none is so bitter as once, alas! was I. With the highest Jewish education and proudest prospects, I was the bloodiest of persecutors.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet. And he says,’
When they heard that he was speaking in ‘the Hebrew language’ they maintained their silence. It is debated as to whether ‘The Hebrew language/dialect’ here means that he spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the New Testament ‘Hebrew’ regularly means Aramaic. For example the superscription above Jesus on the cross was said to be in Greek, Latin and ‘Hebrew’ (Luk 23:38). But we can probably say one thing with near certainty, in an Aramaic speaking country Pilate would not have failed to put it in Aramaic. Thus there ‘Hebrew’ means Aramaic. Of course Hebrew lettering and Aramaic lettering are the same so that only one who knew both Hebrew and Aramaic very well would be able to tell the difference by reading it, and to outsiders it was in ‘Hebrew’, that is, the language that the Hebrews use. All Palestinian Jews tended to speak Aramaic. Hebrew was reserved for religious usage. On the other hand it could be argued that if he spoke in Hebrew it would gain special respect and emphasise that he was a true Jew. It would even help to explain why they were ‘the more quiet’.
The basis of his defence is that all through his life to this point he had acted as a true Jew, in obedience to the God of the Jews. We must remember that he is not answering a specific charge, indeed many of the crowd probably did not know what the specific charge was. What he is doing is seek to win the decent Jews onto his side by showing that all that he has done has been reasonable from a Jewish viewpoint. Then they will recognise the folly of all charges against him.
The speech is in the form of a clear chiasmus, as follows:
a Paul’s Jewish credentials are laid down (Act 22:3).
b His severe persecution of the Way is described (Act 22:4-5).
c The voice of the Lord speaks to him and he sees His light (Act 22:6-9).
d He is told to arise and go into Damascus where he will be told what to do (Act 22:10-11).
e Ananias comes to him and he receives his sight (Act 22:12-13).
f He is told that he has been appointed to know God’s will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the voice from His mouth. He is thus to be the means of the revelation of the resurrection and enthronement of Christ, compare Gal 1:16 (Act 22:14).
e He is to be a witness of what he has seen and heard (Act 22:15).
d He is told to arise and be baptised, and to wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord (Act 22:16).
c The voice of the Lord speaks to him in the Temple and tells him he is to leave Jerusalem because they will not hear him (they will not see His light) (Act 22:17).
b He describes to God his severe persecution of believers (Act 22:19-20).
a He is told to depart and go far hence to the Gentiles (Act 22:21).
In ‘a’ we have the stark contrast of the complete Jew, who in the parallel is sent to the Gentiles (salvation is of the Jews – Joh 4:22 – but is to be made available to all true worshippers – Joh 4:23-24). In ‘b’ the parallel is clear. In ‘c’ the voice of the Lord speaks to him and he sees the divine light, and in the parallel the voice of the Lord speaks to him and tells him that Jerusalem will remain in darkness, it will not hear him. In ‘d’ he arises so as to enter Damascus and learn what he must do, and in the parallel he must arise and be baptised, and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord, which is the first thing he must do. In ‘e’ his eyes are opened that he might see, and in the parallel he must be a witness to what he has seen and heard. In ‘f’ comes the central point of the whole, his call and appointment to know God’s will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear His voice, so that he may be the means of revealing to the world the resurrection and enthronement of Christ Jesus.
This revelation of the resurrection of the dead now takes central place, for having described the appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul in what follows the central part of this section of Acts is built around the proclamation of the hope of the resurrection. It is found in Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Act 26:6-8 (in the introductory analysis ‘h’, ‘l’, and ‘h’). It is then followed by a further description of the risen Jesus to Paul in Act 26:12-18. So from here to chapter 26 the resurrection from the dead is continually emphasised.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Ver. 2. In the Hebrew tongue ] See Trapp on “ Act 21:40 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Act 22:2 . : only in Luke and Paul, except Mat 11:16 , cf. Mat 6:13 ; Matt 7:32 ; Mat 13:12 ; Mat 23:20 , Mat 21:40 , see Friedrich, p. 29, for the frequency of other compounds of in Luke. . : the phrase is used similarly in Plut., Coriol. , 18, Dion Hal., ii., 32, and LXX, Job 34:29 ; on the fondness of St. Luke for , , , and the characteristic way in which silence results from his words and speeches, or before or during the speech, see Friedrich, p. 26, cf. Luk 14:4 ; Luk 15:26 , Act 11:18 ; Act 15:12 , Act 12:17 ; Act 21:40 , and for , 1Th 4:11 , Luk 14:4 , Act 11:18 ; Act 21:14 , so too with accusative of the thing offered by any one, Act 19:24 , Act 28:2 (Act 16:16 ). The verb is used only in Mat 26:10 , and parallel, Mar 14:6 , except in Luke and Paul, Luk 6:29 ; Luk 7:4 ; Luk 11:7 ; Luk 18:5 , Act 16:16 ; Act 17:31 , and as above, and five times in St. Paul’s Epistles.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 22:2
2And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,
Act 22:2 “Hebrew dialect” This refers to Aramaic. All of the places in the Gospels where Jesus’ actual words are recorded are in Aramaic. This was a cognate language to ancient Hebrew. It was the language of the Persian Empire. The Jews learned it while under their control. For example, in Nehemiah 8, where Ezra read the Law of Moses in Hebrew, Levites had to interpret it into Aramaic for the people (cf. Neh 8:7).
“they became even more quiet” Paul’s polite introduction, combined with his fluent Aramaic and the fact that many in this mob knew him or knew of him, caused an immediate, surprising calm. They wanted to hear what he had to saya perfect preaching opportunity to the leaders of Judaism.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
spake . . . to = addressed. Greek. prosphoneo, as in Act 21:40.
Hebrew. Greek. Hebrais, as in Act 21:40.
tongue. Greek. dialektos, as in Act 1:19.
kept, &c. = shewed silence the more.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Act 22:2. , in the Hebrew tongue) Many seem to have been previously ignorant, that the person about whom the commotion was raised, even knew Hebrew.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
in: Act 21:40
Reciprocal: Joh 19:20 – in Act 5:21 – But Act 18:14 – when Act 26:14 – in 1Pe 3:15 – and be
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
Act 22:2. The more silence. An audience will be more willing to listen to a speaker if it knows that the language to be used is one that can be understood. As soon as Paul began to speak the people realized that he was using the dialect that was being spoken in that territory.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 22:2. And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence. He addresses his hearers in the loved sacred language. They would be more likely, he knew, to listen to him whom they fancied was a blasphemer of the law of Moses and the temple, if they heard his account of himself in no hated Gentile language, but in the well-known cherished tongue of the people of God. It is clear from the narrative that the majority at least of his hearers would have perfectly understood Paul had he spoken in Greek. The Hebrew tongue was chosen because he knew they would listen to it, and the event shows he had judged them rightly. When they heard the first words spoken in their fathers tongue, we read, they kept the more silence.
And he saith. The speech of Paul on the steps of the Antonia tower, as reported by the writer of the Acts, contains three divisions:1. Act 22:3-8 treat of his early life, and roughly sketch his story up to the day when the Heavenly Vision and Voice changed the whole current of his existence. 2. Act 22:9-16 relate in detail what took place in the days immediately following this Divine Vision. 3. Act 22:17-21 pursue the story of his life from the days which followed the Heavenly Vision on the Damascus road until the hour when a second time the Divine Voice spoke to him in the temple, and declared to him what should be the grand object of his life.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 1
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
The Hebrew tongue; which was their native tongue.