Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:3

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.

3. I am verily a man which am a Jew ] The word rendered verily is omitted in the oldest MSS. The Rev. Ver. has “ I am a Jew,” and this renders the original fully enough. Cp. note on verse I above. These first words of the Apostle would correct many wrong impressions among the crowd, for we may be sure that many, beside the Chief Captain, had the notion that St Paul was one of those foreign desperadoes with which Juda abounded at this time.

born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia ] Better, “ born in Tarsus of Cilicia ” with the Rev. Ver. On Tarsus see note on Act 6:9.

brought up in this city ] St Paul means not that from his infancy he had lived in Jerusalem, but that, when he had reached an age fitted for it, he was sent from home to be educated under Gamaliel. The verb is used in this sense in classical Greek. On Gamaliel, see note on Act 5:34.

at the feet ] (Cp. Luk 10:39.) The most usual position of teacher and pupils at the time of St Paul was that both should sit, the former on a higher level than the latter. For the evidence on this matter from the Talmud, see Taylor, Pirke Aboth, pp. 28, 29.

and taught [ instructed ] according to the perfect [ strict ] manner of the law of the [ our ] fathers, and was [ being ] zealous, &c.] For an account by the Apostle himself of his Jewish birth, education, and character, cf. Php 3:5-6. He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and his language shews how learned he was in all that concerned his own people. He makes frequent allusions to Jewish customs, laws, and festivals, and reckons his time by the Jewish calendar. He was also a Pharisee, and none of his contemporaries surpassed him while but few equalled him in strictness of legal observance.

as ye all are ] The Apostle wishes to put himself in an acceptable light before them, and for that reason explains that he was, like themselves, a zealous observer of the law.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Born in Tarsus – See the notes on Act 9:11.

Brought up in this city – In Jerusalem, sent there for the advantage of more perfect instruction in the Law.

At the feet of Gamaliel – As a scholar or disciple of Gamaliel. The phrase to sit at the feet of one is expressive of the condition of a disciple or learner. Compare Deu 33:3; Luk 10:39. It is probable that the expression arose from the fact that the learners occupied a lower place or seat than the teacher. On the character and rank of Gamaliel, see the notes on Act 5:34. Paul mentions his having been instructed in this manner in order to show that he was entitled to the full privileges of a Jew, and that he had had every opportunity to become fully acquainted with the nature of the Law.

According to the perfect manner – kata akribeian . By strict diligence or exact care; or in the utmost rigor and severity of that instruction. No pains were Spared to make him understand and practice the Law of Moses.

The law of the fathers – The law of our fathers; that is, the law which they received and handed down to us. Paul was a Pharisee, and the law in which he had been taught was not only the written Law of Moses, but the traditional law which had been handed down from former times. See the notes on Mat 3:6.

And was zealous toward God – Gal 1:14. He had a constant burning zeal for God and His Law, which was expressed not only by scrupulous adherence to its forms, but by persecuting all who opposed it, Act 22:4-5.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 3. I am verily a man which am a Jew] A periphrasis for, I am really a Jew: and his mentioning this adds weight to the conjecture in the preceding note. He shows that he could not be ignorant of the Jewish religion, as he had had the best instructer in it which Jerusalem could produce.

Yet brought up, c.] Bp. Pearce proposes that this verse should be thus read and translated: but brought up in this city instructed at the feet of Gamaliel, according to the most exact manner, being exceedingly zealous for the law of our fathers, as ye all are this day.

Born in Tarsus] See Clarke on Ac 9:11; and See Clarke on Ac 21:39.

Feet of Gamaliel] See a full account of this man in Clarke’s note on “Ac 5:34“.

It has been generally supposed that the phrase, brought up at the feet, is a reference to the Jewish custom, viz. that the disciples of the rabbins sat on low seats, or on the ground, whilst the rabbin himself occupied a lofty chair. But we rather learn, from Jewish authority, that the disciples of the rabbins stood before their teachers, as Vitringa has proved in his treatise De Synag. Vet. lib. i. p. 1, cap. 7. Kypke, therefore, contends that , at the feet, means the same as , near, or before, which is not an unfrequent mode of speech among both sacred and profane writers. Thus, in Ac 4:35; Ac 4:37; Ac 5:2, , they laid it at the apostles’ feet, means only, they brought it to the apostles. So in 2 Macc. iv. 7, , they saw death already lying at their feet; that is, as the Syriac translator has properly rendered it, they saw death immediately before them. So Themistius, Or. 27, p. 341, who adds the term by which the phrase is explained, , ante pedes id temper et prope est, illi qui accipere potest. Also Lucian, De Conser. Hist. p. 669, . The refutation of which is at hand. The same kind of form occurs in the Hebrew, Ex 11:8: All the people that are at thy feet, beragleica, i.e. who are with thee, under thy command, Acts 22:2; Acts 15:16. And the king went out, and all his household, beraglaiv, at his feet; that is, with him, in his company. See Kypke. The phrase is used in the same sense among the Hindoos: I learned this at my father’s feet-instead of, I learned it of my father. I was taught at the feet of such a teacher-my teacher’s feet say so; meaning, simply, such and such persons taught me.

According to the perfect manner] That is, according to that strict interpretation of the law, and especially the traditions of the elders, for which the Pharisees were remarkable. That it is Pharisaism that the apostle has in view, when he says he was taught according to, , the most extinct manner, is evident; and hence, in Ac 26:5, he calls Pharisaism , the most exact system; and, under it, he was zealous towards God; scrupulously exact in every part of his duty, accompanying this with reverence to the supreme Being, and deep concern for his honour and glory.

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

At the feet; the apostle alludes unto the posture that the disciples of any rabbi, or teacher, in those times did use; the master sitting in some high or elevated place, did teach his scholars, who sat at his feet on the ground; and as they grew in knowledge, were advanced to sit nearer to their master: Deu 33:3. Abraham is thus said to be called to Gods foot, Isa 41:2; and Mary sat at our Saviours feet, Luk 10:39.

Of Gamaliel; the same Gamaliel who made that moderating speech in the apostles behalf, Act 5:34.

The perfect manner of the law; this perfect manner of the law is Pharisaism, in which the apostle was brought up, and before his conversion made a profession of, Phi 3:5. Not that the apostle reckoned upon any perfection in this profession; but because, as Act 26:5, it was the most strait sect of their religion, observing a great deal of punctuality and accurateness, making what they called a hedge about the law.

Of the fathers; not observing only the law, which was given by God to their fathers by the hand of Moses; but the traditions of their fathers he was exceeding zealous in; as Gal 1:14.

Zealous toward God; or, as some copies read, zealous toward the law; both in the same sense. His zeal for the law was sincere, not out of by-ends, but out of his love to God, though it was not according to knowledge, Rom 10:2. It was truly according unto what he knew or believed, but it was not according to true knowledge.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. a Jew of Tarsus, brought up inthis city, at the feet(See on Lu10:39).

of Gamaliel(See on Ac5:34); a fact of great importance in the apostle’s history,standing in the same relation to his future career as Moses’education in the Egyptian court to the work for which he wasdestined.

the perfect manner of the lawof the fathersthe strictest form of traditional Judaism.

zealous“azealot.”

toward God as ye all are thisdayhis own former murderous zeal against the disciples of theLord Jesus being merely reflected in their present treatment ofhimself.

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

I am verily a man which am a Jew,…. By birth, a thorough genuine one; an Hebrew of the Hebrews, both by father and mother side, both parents being Jews, and so a true descendant from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia; [See comments on Ac 21:39].

yet brought up in this city; the city of Jerusalem; though Tarsus was the place of his birth, he had his education at Jerusalem:

at the feet of Gamaliel; of whom see Ac 5:34 it was the custom of scholars among the Jews, to sit at the feet of their masters, when instructed by them; see De 33:3 hence that saying of Jose ben Joezer a;

“let thy house be an house of resort for the wise men, and be thou dusting thyself, , “with the dust of their feet”:”

which by one of their commentators b is interpreted two ways, either

“as if it was said that thou shouldst walk after them; for he that walks raises the dust with his feet, and he that goes after him is filled with the dust which he raises with his feet; or else that thou shouldst sit at their feet upon the ground, for so it was usual, that the master sat upon a bench, and the scholars sat at his feet upon the floor.”

This latter sense is commonly understood, and adapted to the passage here, as illustrating it; though it may be, that the sense may only be this, that the apostle boarded in Gamaliel’s house, ate at his table, and familiarly conversed with him; which he modestly expresses by being brought up at his feet, who was a man that was had in great reverence with the Jews; and this sense seems the rather to be the sense of the passage, since his learning is expressed in the next clause; and since; till after Gamaliel’s time, it was not usual for scholars to sit when they learned; for the tradition is c, that

“from the times of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel, they (the scholars) did not learn the law but standing; after Rabban Gamaliel died, sickness came into the world, and they learned the law sitting; and hence it is said, that after Rabban Gamaliel died, the glory of the law ceased.”

It follows,

[and] taught according to the perfect law of the fathers; not the law which the Jewish fathers received from Moses, though Paul was instructed in this, but in the oral law, the “Misna”, or traditions of the elders, in which he greatly profited, and exceeded others, Ga 1:14.

And was zealous towards God; or “a zealot of God”; one of those who were called “Kanaim”, or zealots; who in their great zeal for the glory of God, took away the lives of men, when they found them guilty of what they judged a capital crime; see Mt 10:4. The Vulgate Latin version reads, “zealous of the law”; both written and oral, the law of Moses, and the traditions of the fathers:

as ye all are this day; having a zeal for God, and the law, but not according to knowledge.

a Misn. Pirke Abot, c. 1. sect. 4. b Bartenora in Misn. Piske Abot, c. 1. sect. 4. c T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 21. 1. Vid. Misn. Sota, c. 9. sect. 15.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul’s First Defence.

      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.   4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.   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.   6 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.   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 saw indeed the light, and were afraid; 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 into 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, 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, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,   13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.   14 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.   15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.   16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.   17 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;   18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.   19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:   20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.   21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

      Paul here gives such an account of himself as might serve not only to satisfy the chief captain that he was not that Egyptian he took him to be, but the Jews also that he was not that enemy to their church and nation, to their law and temple, they took him to be, and that what he did in preaching Christ, and particularly in preaching him to the Gentiles, he did by a divine commission. He here gives them to understand,

      I. What his extraction and education were. 1. That he was one of their own nation, of the stock of Israel, of the seed of Abraham, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, not of any obscure family, or a renegado of some other nation: “No, I am verily a man who is a Jew, aner Ioudaios—a Jewish man; I am a man, and therefore ought not to be treated as a beast; a man who is a Jew, not a barbarian; I am a sincere friend to your nation, for I am one of it, and should defile my own nest if I should unjustly derogate from the honour of your law and your temple.” 2. That he was born in a creditable reputable place, in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, and was by his birth a freeman of that city. He was not born in servitude, as some of the Jews of the dispersion, it is likely, were; but he was a gentleman born, and perhaps could produce his certificate of his freedom in that ancient and honourable city. This was, indeed, but a small matter to make any boast of, and yet it was needful to be mentioned at this time to those who insolently trampled upon him, as if he were to be ranked with the children of fools, yea, the children of base men, Job xxx. 8. 3. That he had a learned and liberal education. He was not only a Jew, and a gentleman, but a scholar. He was brought up in Jerusalem, the principal seat of the Jewish learning, and at the feet of Gamaliel, whom they all knew to be an eminent doctor of the Jewish law, of which Paul was designed to be himself a teacher; and therefore he could not be ignorant of their law, nor be thought to slight it because he did not know it. His parents had brought him very young to this city, designing him for a Pharisee; and some think his being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel intimates, not only that he was one of his pupils, but that he was, above any other, diligent and constant in attending his lectures, observant of him, and obsequious to him, in all he said, as Mary, that sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 4. That he was in his early days a very forward and eminent professor of the Jews’ religion; his studies and learning were all directed that way. So far was he from being principled in his youth with any disaffection to the religious usages of the Jews that there was not a young man among them who had a greater and more entire veneration for them than he had, was more strict in observing them himself, or more hot in enforcing them upon others. (1.) He was an intelligent professor of their religion, and had a clear head. He minded his business at Gamaliel’s feet, and was there taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers. What departures he had made from the law were not owing to any confused or mistaken notions of it, for he understood it to a nicety, kata akribeian—according to the most accurate and exact method. He was not trained up in the principles of the latitudinarians, had nothing in him of a Sadducee, but was of that sect that was most studious in the law, kept most close to it, and, to make it more strict than it was, added to it the traditions of the elders, the law of the fathers, the law which was given to them, and which they gave to their children, and so it was handed down to us. Paul had as great a value for antiquity, and tradition, and the authority of the church, as any of them had; and there was never a Jew of them all that understood his religion better than Paul did, or could better give an account of it or a reason for it. (2.) He was an active professor of their religion, and had a warm heart: I was zealous towards God, as you all are this day. Many that are very well skilled in the theory of religion are willing to leave the practice of it to others, but Paul was as much a zealot as a rabbi. He was zealous against every thing that the law prohibited, and for every thing that the law enjoined; and this was zeal towards God, because he thought it was for the honour of God and the service of his interests; and here he compliments his hearers with a candid and charitable opinion of them, that they all were this day zealous towards God; he bears them record (Rom. x. 2), that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. In hating him, and casting him out, they said, Let the Lord be glorified (Isa. lxvi. 5), and, though this did by no means justify their rage, yet it enabled those that prayed, Father, forgive them, to plead, as Christ did, For they know not what they do. And when Paul owns that he had been zealous for God in the law of Moses, as they were this day, he intimates his hope that they might be zealous for God, in Christ, as he was this day.

      II. What a fiery furious persecutor he had been of the Christian religion in the beginning of his time, Act 22:4; Act 22:5. He mentions this to make it the more plainly and evidently to appear that the change which was wrought upon him, when he was converted to the Christian faith, was purely the effect of a divine power; for he was so far from having any previous inclinations to it, or favourable opinions of it, that immediately before that sudden change was wrought in him he had the utmost antipathy imaginable to Christianity, and was filled with rage against it to the last degree. And perhaps he mentions it to justify God in his present trouble; how unrighteous soever those were that persecuted him, God was righteous, who permitted them to do it, for time was when he was a persecutor; and he may have a further view in it to invite and encourage those people to repent, for he himself had been a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and yet obtained mercy. Let us view Paul’s picture of himself when he was a persecutor. 1. He hated Christianity with a mortal enmity: I persecuted this way unto the death, that is, “Those that walked in this way I aimed, if possible, to be the death of.” He breathed out slaughter against them, ch. ix. 1. When they were put to death, he gave his voice against them, ch. xxvi. 10. Nay, he persecuted not only those that walked in this way, but the way itself, Christianity, which was branded as a byway, a sect; he aimed to persecute this to the death, to be the ruin of this religion. He persecuted it to the death, that is, he could have been willing himself to die in his opposition to Christianity, so some understand it. He would contentedly have lost his life, and would have thought it well laid out, in defence of the laws and traditions of the fathers. 2. He did all he could to frighten people from this way, and out of it, by binding and delivering into prison both men and women; he filled the jails with Christians. Now that he himself was bound, he lays a particular stress upon this part of his charge against himself, that he had bound the Christians, and carried them to prison; he likewise reflects upon it with a special regret that he had imprisoned not only the men, but the women, the weaker sex, who ought to be treated with particular tenderness and compassion. 3. He was employed by the great sanhedrim, the high priest, and all the estate of the elders, as an agent for them, in suppressing this new sect; so much had he already signalized himself for his zeal against it, v. 5. The high priest can witness for him that he was ready to be employed in any service against the Christians. When they heard that many of the Jews at Damascus had embraced the Christian faith, to deter others from doing the like they resolved to proceed against them with the utmost severity, and could not think of a fitter person to be employed in that business, nor one more likely to go through with it, than Paul. They therefore sent him, and letters by him, to the Jews at Damascus, here called the brethren, because they all descended from one common stock, and were of one family in religion too, ordering them to be assisting to Paul in seizing those among them that had turned Christians, and bringing them up prisoners to Jerusalem, in order to their being punished as deserters from the faith and worship of the God of Israel; and so might either be compelled to retract, or be put to death for a terror to others. Thus did Saul make havoc of the church, and was in a fair way, if he had gone on awhile, to ruin it, and root it out. “Such a one,” says Paul, “I was at first, just such as you now are. I know the heart of a persecutor, and therefore pity you, and pray that you may know the heart of a convert, as God soon made me to do. And who was I that I could withstand God?“

      III. In what manner he was converted and made what he now was. It was not from any natural or external causes; he did not change his religion from an affectation of novelty, for he was then as well affected to antiquity as he used to be; nor did it arise from discontent because he was disappointed in his preferment, for he was now, more than ever, in the way of preferment in the Jewish church; much less could it arise from covetousness, or ambition, or any hope of mending his fortune in the world by turning Christian, for it was to expose himself to all manner of disgrace and trouble; nor had he any conversation with the apostles or any other Christians, by whose subtlety and sophistry he might be thought to have been wheedled into this change. No, it was the Lord’s doing, and the circumstances of the doing of it were enough to justify him in the change, to all those who believe there is a supernatural power; and none can condemn him for it, without reflecting upon that divine energy by which he was he rein overruled. He relates the story of his conversion here very particularly, as we had it before (ch. ix.), aiming to show that it was purely the act of God. 1. He was a fully bent upon persecuting the Christians just before Christ arrested him as ever. He made his journey, and was come nigh to Damascus (v. 6), and had no other thought than to execute the cruel design he was sent upon; he was not conscious of the least compassionate relentings towards the poor Christians, but still represented them to himself as heretics, schismatics, and dangerous enemies both to church and state. 2. It was a light from heaven that first startled him, a great light, which shone suddenly round about him, and the Jews knew that God is light, and his angels angels of light, and that such a light as this shining at noon, and therefore exceeding that of the sun, must be from God. Had it shone in upon him into some private room, there might have been a cheat in it, but it shone upon him in the open road, at high noon, and so strongly that it struck him to the ground (v. 7), and all that were with him, ch. xxvi. 14. They could not deny but that surely the Lord was in this light. 3. It was a voice from heaven that first begat in him awful thoughts of Jesus Christ, of whom before he had had nothing but hateful spiteful thoughts. The voice called to him by name, to distinguish him from those that journeyed with him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And when he asked, Who art thou, Lord? it was answered, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest, v. 8. By which it appeared that this Jesus of Nazareth, whom they also were now persecuting, was one that spoke from heaven, and they knew it was dangerous resisting one that did so, Heb. xii. 25. 4. Lest it should be objected, “How came this light and voice to work such a change upon him, and not upon those that journeyed with him?” (though, it is very probable, it had a good effect upon them, and that they thereupon became Christians), he observes that his fellow travellers saw indeed the light, and were afraid they should be consumed with fire from heaven, their own consciences, perhaps, now telling them that the way they were in was not good, but like Balaam’s when he was going to curse Israel, and therefore they might expect to meet an angel with a flaming glittering sword; but, though the light made them afraid, they heard not the voice of him that spoke to Paul, that is, they did not distinctly hear the words. Now faith comes by hearing, and therefore that change was now presently wrought upon him that heard the words, and heard them directed to himself, which was not wrought upon those who only saw the light; and yet it might afterwards be wrought upon them too. 5. He assures them that when he was thus startled he referred himself entirely to a divine guidance; he did not hereupon presently cry out, “Well, I will be a Christian,” but, “What shall I do, Lord? Let the same voice from heaven that has stopped me in the wrong way guide me into the right way, v. 10. Lord, tell me what I shall do, and I will do it.” And immediately he had directions to go to Damascus, and there he should hear further from him that now spoke to him: “No more needs to be said from heaven, there it shall be told thee, by a man like thyself, in the name of him that now speaks to thee, all things which are appointed for thee to do.” The extraordinary ways of divine revelation, by visions, and voices, and the appearance of angels, were designed, both in the Old Testament and in the New, only to introduce and establish the ordinary method by the scriptures and a standing ministry, and therefore were generally superseded when these were settled. The angel did not preach to Cornelius himself, but bade him send for Peter; so the voice here tells not Paul what he shall do, but bids him go to Damascus, and there it shall be told him. 6. As a demonstration of the greatness of that light which fastened upon him, he tells them of the immediate effect it had upon his eye-sight (v. 11): I could not see for the glory of that light. It struck him blind for the present. Nimium sensibile ldit sensum–Its radiance dazzled him. Condemned sinners are struck blind, as the Sodomites and Egyptians were, by the power of darkness, and it is a lasting blindness, like that of the unbelieving Jews; but convinced sinners are struck blind, as Paul here was, not by darkness, but by light: they are for the present brought to be at a loss within themselves, but it is in order to their being enlightened, as the putting of clay upon the eyes of the blind man was the designed method of his cure. Those that were with Paul had not the light so directly darted into their faces as Paul had unto his, and therefore they were not blinded, as he was; yet, considering the issue, who would not rather have chosen his lot than theirs? They, having their sight, led Paul by the hand into the city. Paul, being a Pharisee, was proud of his spiritual eyesight. The Pharisees said, Are we blind also? John ix. 40. Nay, they were confident that they themselves were guides to the blind, and lights to those that were in darkness, Rom. ii. 19. Now Paul was thus struck with bodily blindness to make him sensible of his spiritual blindness, and his mistake concerning himself, when he was alive without the law, Rom. vii. 9.

      IV. How he was confirmed in the change he had made, and further directed what he should do, by Ananias who lived at Damascus.

      Observe, 1. The character here given of Ananias. He was not a man that was any way prejudiced against the Jewish nation or religion, but was himself a devout man according to the law; if not a Jew by birth, yet one that had been proselyted to the Jewish religion, and therefore called a devout man, and thence advanced further to the faith of Christ; and he conducted himself so well that he had a good report of all the Jews that dwelt at Damascus. This was the first Christian that Paul had any friendly communication with, and it was not likely that he should instil into him any such notions as they suspected him to espouse, injurious to the law or to this holy place.

      2. The cure immediately wrought by him upon Paul’s eyes, which miracle was to confirm Ananias’s mission to Paul, and to ratify all that he should afterwards say to him. He came to him (v. 13); and, to assure him that he came to him from Christ (the very same who had torn and would heal him, had smitten, but would bind him up, had taken away his sight, but would restore it again, with advantage), he stood by him, and said, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. Power went along with this word, and the same hour, immediately, he recovered his sight, and looked up upon him, ready to receive from him the instructions sent by him.

      3. The declaration which Ananias makes to him of the favour, the peculiar favour, which the Lord Jesus designed him above any other.

      (1.) In the present manifestation of himself to him (v. 14): The God of our fathers has chosen thee. This powerful call is the result of a particular choice; his calling God the God of our fathers intimates that Ananias was himself a Jew by birth, that observed the law of the fathers, and lived upon the promise made unto the fathers; and he gives a reason why he said Brother Saul, when he speaks of God as the God of our fathers: This God of our fathers has chosen thee that thou shouldst, [1.] Know his will, the will of his precept that is to be done by thee, the will of his providence that is to be done concerning thee. He hath chosen thee that thou shouldst know it in a more peculiar manner; not of man nor by man, but immediately by the revelation of Christ,Gal 1:1; Gal 1:2. Those whom God hath chosen he hath chosen to know his will, and to do it. [2.] That thou shouldst see that Just One, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth, and so shouldst know his will immediately from himself. This was what Paul was, in a particular manner, chosen to above others; it was a distinguishing favour, that he should see Christ here upon earth after his ascension into heaven. Stephen saw him standing at the right hand of God, but Paul saw him standing at his right hand. This honour none had but Paul. Stephen saw him, but we do not find that he heard the voice of his mouth, as Paul did, who says, he was last of all seen of me, as of one born out of due time, 1 Cor. xv. 8. Christ is here called that Just One; for he is Jesus Christ the righteous, and suffered wrongfully. Observe, Those whom God has chosen to know his will must have an eye to Christ, and must see him, and hear the voice of his mouth; for it is by him that God has made known his will, his good-will to us, and he has said, Hear you him.

      (2.) In the after-manifestation of himself by him to others (v. 15): “Thou shalt be his witness, not only a monument of his grace, as a pillar may be, but a witness viva voce–by word of mouth; thou shalt publish his gospel, as that which thou hast experienced the power of, and been delivered into, the mould of; thou shalt be his witness unto all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, of what thou hast seen and heard, now at the very first.” And finding Paul so particularly relating the manner of his conversation in his apologies for himself, here and ch. xxvi., we have reason to think that he frequently related the same narrative in his preaching for the conversion of others; he told them what God had done for his soul, to encourage them to hope that he would do something for their souls.

      4. The counsel and encouragement he gave him to join himself to the Lord Jesus by baptism (v. 16): Arise, and be baptized, He had in his circumcision been given up to God, but he must now by baptism be given up to God in Christ–must embrace the Christian religion and the privileges of it, in submission to the precepts of it. This must now be done immediately upon his conversion, and so was added to his circumcision: but to the seed of the faithful it comes in the room of it; for it is, as that was to Abraham and his believing seed, a seal of the righteousness which is by faith. (1.) The great gospel privilege which by baptism we have sealed to us is the remission of sins: Be baptized and wash away thy sins; that is, “Receive the comfort of the pardon of thy sins in the through Jesus Christ and lay hold of his righteousness for that purpose, and receive power against sin for the mortifying of thy corruption;” for our being washed includes our being both justified and sanctified, 1 Cor. vi. 11. Be baptized, and rest not in the sign, but make sure of the thing signified, the putting away of the filth of sin. (2.) The great gospel duty which by our baptism we are bound to is to call on the name of the Lord, the Lord Jesus; to acknowledge him to be our Lord and our God, and to apply to him accordingly; to give honour to him, to put all our petitions in his hand. To call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord (Son of David, have mercy on us) is the periphrasis of a Christian, 1 Cor. i. 2. We must wash away our sins, calling on the name of the Lord; that is, we must seek for the pardon of our sins in Christ’s name, and in dependence on him and his righteousness. In prayer, we must not any longer call God the God of Abraham, but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in him our Father; in every prayer, our eye must be to Christ. (3.) We must do this quickly. Why tarriest thou? Our covenanting with God in Christ is needful work, that must not be deferred. The case is so plain that it is needless to deliberate; and the hazard so great that it is folly to delay. Why should not that be done at the present time that must be done some time, or we are undone?

      V. How he was commissioned to go and preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This was the great thing for which they were so angry at him, and therefore it was requisite he should for this, in a special manner, produce a divine warrant; and here he does it. This commission he did not receive presently upon his conversion, for this was at Jerusalem, whither he did not go till three years after, or more (Gal. i. 18); and whether it was then, or afterwards, that he had this vision here spoken of, we are not certain. But, to reconcile them, if possible, to his preaching the gospel among the Gentiles, he tells them, 1. That he received his orders to do it when he was at prayer, begging of God to appoint him his work and to show him the course he should steer; and (which was a circumstance that would have some weight with those he was now speaking to) he was at prayer in the temple, which was to be called a house of prayer for all people; not only in which all people should pray, but in which all people should be prayed for. Now as Paul’s praying in the temple was an evidence, contrary to their malicious suggestion, that he had a veneration for the temple, though he did not make an idol of it as they did; so God’s giving him this commission there in the temple was an evidence that the sending him to the Gentiles would be no prejudice to the temple, unless the Jews by their infidelity made it so. Now it would be a great satisfaction to Paul afterwards, in the execution of this commission, to reflect upon it that he received it when he was at prayer. 2. He received it in a vision. He fell into a trance (v. 17), his external senses, for the present, locked up; he was in an ecstasy, as when he was caught up into the third heaven, and was not at that time sensible whether he was in the body or out of the body. In this trance he saw Jesus Christ, not with the eyes of his body, as at his conversion, but represented to the eye of his mind (v. 18): I saw him saying unto me. Our eye must be upon Christ when we are receiving the law from his mouth; and we must not only hear him speak, but see him speaking to us. 3. Before Christ gave him a commission to go to the Gentiles, he told him it was to no purpose for him to think of doing any good at Jerusalem; so that they must not blame him, but themselves, if he be sent to the Gentiles. Paul came to Jerusalem full of hopes that, by the grace of God, he might be instrumental to bring those to the faith of Christ who had stood it out against the ministry of the other apostles; and perhaps this was what he was now praying for, that he, having had his education at Jerusalem and being well known there, might be employed in gathering the children of Jerusalem to Christ that were not yet gathered, which he thought he had particular advantages for doing of. But Christ crosses the measures he had laid: “Make haste,” says he, “and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem;” for, though thou thinkest thyself more likely to work upon them than others, thou wilt find they are more prejudiced against thee than against any other, and therefore “will not receive thy testimony concerning me.” As God knows before who will receive the gospel, so he knows who will reject it. 4. Paul, notwithstanding this, renewed his petition that he might be employed at Jerusalem, because they knew, better than any did, what he had been before his conversion, and therefore must ascribe so great a change in him to the power of almighty grace, and consequently give the greater regard to his testimony; thus he reasoned, both with himself and with the Lord, and thought he reasoned justly (Act 22:19; Act 22:20): “Lord,” says he, “they know that I was once of their mind, that I was as bitter an enemy as any of them to such as believed on thee, that I irritated the civil power against them, and imprisoned them, and turned the edge of the spiritual power against them too, and beat them in every synagogue.” And therefore they will not impute my preaching Christ to education nor to any prepossession in his favour (as they do that of other ministers), but will the more readily regard what I say because they know I have myself been one of them: particularly in Stephen’s case; they know that when he was stoned I was standing by, I was aiding and abetting and consenting to his death, and in token of this kept the clothes of those that stoned him. Now “Lord,” says he, “if I appear among them, preaching the doctrine that Stephen preached and suffered for, they will no doubt receive my testimony.” “No,” says Christ to him, “they will not; but will be more exasperated against thee as a deserter from, than against others whom they look upon only as strangers to, their constitution.” 5. Paul’s petition for a warrant to preach the gospel at Jerusalem is overruled, and he has peremptory orders to go among the Gentiles (v. 21): Depart, for I will send thee far hence, unto the Gentiles. Note, God often gives gracious answers to the prayers of his people, not in the thing itself that they pray for, but in something better. Abraham prays, O that Ishmael may live before thee; and God hears him for Isaac. So Paul here prays that he may be an instrument of converting souls at Jerusalem: “No,” says Christ, “but thou shalt be employed among the Gentiles, and more shall be the children of the desolate than those of the married wife.” It is God that appoints his labourers both their day and their place, and it is fit they should acquiesce in his appointment, though it may cross their own inclinations. Paul hankers after Jerusalem: to be a preacher there was the summit of his ambition; but Christ designs him greater preferment. He shall not enter into other men’s labours (as the other apostles did, John iv. 38), but shall break up new ground, and preach the gospel where Christ was not named, Rom. xv. 20. So often does Providence contrive better for us than we for ourselves; to the guidance of that we must therefore refer ourselves. He shall choose our inheritance for us. Observe, Paul shall not go to preach among the Gentiles without a commission: I will send thee. And, if Christ send him, his Spirit will go along with him, he will stand by him, will carry him on, and bear him out, and give him to see the fruit of his labours. Let not Paul set his heart upon Jerusalem, for he must be sent far hence; his call must be quite another way, and his work of another kind. And it might be a mitigation of the offence of this to the Jews that he did not set up a Gentile church in the neighbouring nations; others did this in their immediate vicinity; he was sent to places at a distance, a vast way off, where what he did could not be thought an annoyance to them.

      Now, if they would lay all this together, surely they would see that they had no reason to be angry with Paul for preaching among the Gentiles, or construe it as an act of ill-will to his own nation, for he was compelled to it, contrary to his own mind, by an overruling command from heaven.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

I am a Jew ( ). Note use of for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in Acts 26:4; 2Cor 11:22; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4-7.

Born (). Perfect passive participle of . See above in 21:39 for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. Ac 6:1).

Brought up (). Perfect passive participle again of , to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, 7:20ff., and MSS. in Lu 4:16. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, “from my youth” (26:4), how young we do not know, possibly thirteen or fourteen years old. He apparently had not seen Jesus in the flesh (2Co 5:16).

At the feet of Gamaliel ( ). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter 5:34ff. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title (our Rabbi). (my teacher) was next, the lowest being (teacher). “As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called Doctor Angelicus, and Bonaventura Doctor Seraphicus, so Gamaliel was called the Beauty of the Law” (Conybeare and Howson).

Instructed (). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of , old verb to train a child () as in 7:22 which see. In this sense also in 1Tim 1:20; Titus 2:12. Then to chastise as in Luke 23:16; Luke 23:22 (which see); 2Tim 2:25; Heb 12:6.

According to the strict manner ( ). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in 26:5. See also Rom 10:2; Gal 1:4; Phil 3:4-7.

Of our fathers (). Old adjective from , only here and 24:14 in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations.

Being zealous for God ( ). Not adjective, but substantive

zealot (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, 21:20 which see) with objective genitive (for God). See also verse Acts 22:14; Acts 28:17; 2Tim 1:3 where he makes a similar claim. So did Peter (Acts 3:13; Acts 5:30) and Stephen (7:32). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally “a zealot for God” “even as ye all are this day” ( ). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

At the feet. Referring to the Jewish custom of the pupils sitting on benches or on the floor, while the teacher occupied an elevated platform. Gamaliel. One of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the title Rabban. Rab, “teacher,” was the lowest degree; Rabbi, “my teacher,” the next higher. and Rabban, “our teacher,” the highest. Gamaliel was a liberal Pharisee. “As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called Doctor Angelicus, and Bonaventura Doctor Seraphicus, so Gamaliel was called the Beauty of the Law. He had no antipathy to the Greek learning. Candor and wisdom seem to have been features of his character” (Conybeare and Howson). See ch. Act 5:34 sq.

Instructed [] . See on chastise, Luk 23:16.

According to the perfect manner [ ] . Lit., according to the strictness. See on perfect understanding, Luk 1:3; and diligently, Act 18:25. Compare, also, Act 18:26; Act 26:5.

Zealous [] . Or a zealot. On the word as a title, see on Mr 3:18.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “I am verily a man which am a Jew,” (ego eimi aner loudaios) “I am myself (verily or truly) a Jew-man,” one of your own nation, Israel. This opening, specific identity of himself, was designed by Paul to correct the mistaken notion, of any in the crowd, that he was some desperado from among the many then in Judea, a first thing that Lysias the captain thought, Act 21:38; 2Co 11:22.

2) “Born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia,” (gegennemos en Tarso tes Kilikias) “Who was born in Tarsus of Cilicia,” a city of Cilicia, Act 9:11; Act 21:39.

3) “Yet brought up in this city “ (anatelhrammenos de en te polei taute) “Yet, having been brought up in this city,” of Jerusalem, city of peace, from the age of 11 to 13 years when he entered Gamaliel’s School until he was finished and later converted, at some thirty years or more of age, Act 26:4.

4) “At the feet of Gamaliel,(para tous podas Gamaliel) “Along-side the feet (having been taught) of Gamaliel,” a highly respected Hebrew Scholar, often sought for his wisdom in the council of the Sanhedrin, Act 5:34-40. Paul, like Moses, was brought up and educated in the very area where he was to give his greatest witness, Act 7:21-23.

5) “And taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,” (pepaideumenos kata akribeian tou patroou nomou) “Having been trained from boyhood according to the definitive exactness of the ancestral law,” the law of Moses and the customs and traditions of the elders or fathers, Act 26:4-11; Php_3:4-7.

6) “And was zealous toward God,” (zelotes huparchon tou theou) “Being or existing therein a zealot of God,” as far as I had been taught and then understood, though both my interpretations and practices of the law were in ignorance, Gal 1:14; 1Ti 1:13; Rom 10:2; Rom 10:1.

7) “As ye all are this day “ (kathos pantes humeis este semeron) “Just as you all are today;” This was at the same time flattering, complimentary, and condemning, because ignorant zeal exercised for the law, unlawfully, brings condemnation, Rom 10:1-4; 2Co 4:3-4; Eph 4:8.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

3. I am a Jew. As all things were out of order at that day among the Jews, many rogues and vagabonds, to the end they might have some shroud for their wickedness, did falsely boast that they were Jews. Therefore, to the end Paul may acquit himself of this suspicion, he beginneth at his birth; that done, he declareth that he was known in Jerusalem, because he was brought up there of [from] a child; though this latter thing seemeth to be spoken not only for certainty’s sake, but because it skilled much that this should also be known how well he had been instructed. −

There is nothing more bold to cause trouble than unlearned men. And at that day the government of the Church was so decayed, that religion was not only subject to sects, but also miserably mangled and torn in pieces. Therefore, Paul nameth his master, lest any man may think that he had not been nousled up in learning, − (498) and therefore had he forsaken the worship of the fathers; as many men, who are not trained up in learning, forget their nature and grow out of kind. − (499) But Paul saith chiefly that he was well taught in the law, that the Jews may understand that it was not through ignorance (as it falleth out oftentimes) that he causeth such ado, and doth counterfeit their monsters. −

It is to be doubted whether this be that Gamaliel of whom mention is made before, ( Act 5:34). Scholars are said to sit at their masters’ feet, because forasmuch as they be not as­ yet of strong and sound judgment, they must bring such modesty and aptness to be taught, that they must make all their senses subject to their masters, and must depend upon their mouth. So Mary is said to sit at Jesus’ feet ( Luk 10:39) when she giveth ear to his doctrine. But and if such reverence be due to earthly masters, how much more ought we to prostrate ourselves before the feet of Christ, that we may give ear to him when he teacheth us out of his heavenly throne? This speech doth also put boys and young men in remembrance of their duty, that they be not stout nor stubborn, or that they be not puffed nor lifted up against their masters through some foolish confidence, but that they suffer themselves quietly and gently to be framed by them. −

Taught in the law of the fathers. The old interpreter doth translate it word for word, taught according to the truth of the fathers’ law, saving that ἀκρίβεια is rather a perfect way − (500) than truth. Notwithstanding the question is, What he meaneth by this perfect way, seeing all of them had one and the same form of the law? He seemeth to me to distinguish that purer form of knowledge wherein he had been trained up from the common instruction, which did more disagree with the true and natural meaning of the law. And although the law of the Lord was then corrupt by many additions, even among the best doctors, yet because religion was altogether there corrupt among many, Paul doth for good causes boast, that he was both well and also diligently instructed in the law of the fathers; or (which is all one) exactly or perfectly, lest any man should think that he had gotten only some small smattering, as if he were one of the common sort. −

But because many who are well taught are, notwithstanding, full stuffed with Epicurish contempt of God, he declareth that he was zealous toward God; as if he should say, that the serious study of godliness was annexed to doctrine, so that he meant not to daily in holy things, as profane men do of set purpose confound all things. −

But because this his zeal was altogether rash, he maketh himself like to the other Jews for that time. Notwithstanding, this may be taken in good part, that he did long ago no less worship God from his heart than they did then. −

(498) −

“

Nulla disciplina imbutum,” not imbued with any discipline.

(499) −

“

Fiunt degeneres,” become degenerate,

(500) −

“

Exacta ratio,” an exact method.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) Brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel.His education may have begun shortly after he became a child of the Law, at the age of twelve. (See Note on Luk. 2:42.) He, too, had sat in the midst of the doctors, hearing and asking questions. The Rabbis sat in a high chair, and their scholars on the ground, and so they were literally at their masters feet.

Taught according to the perfect manner . .The two last words are expressed in the Greek by a single noun, meaning accuracy, exactness. In the most straitest sect of our religion, of Act. 26:5, we have the corresponding adjective.

Was zealous toward God.The Apostle (see Note on Act. 21:20) claims their sympathy as having at one time shared all their dearest convictions. There is, perhaps, a touch of higher enthusiasm in the Apostles language. He was a zealot for God: they were zealots for the Law.

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

3. Nearly every term is emphatic. Verily a Jew, this city, Gamaliel, perfect, law, fathers, all are points of a preeminent instance.

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

“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 you all are this day, and I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest does bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders, from whom also I received letters to the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also who were there to Jerusalem in bonds to be punished.”

First he lays down his credentials:

He was a Jew – this he declares clearly and emphatically. He was a Jew through and through, and proud of it. Compare 2Co 11:22; Php 3:4-5. This was important because God’s revealed purpose has been that it is the Jews who will bring the light of His truth to the world. Salvation is of the Jews.

He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia where there were large numbers of respected Jews, and his family were so ‘Jewish’ that they arranged for him to be educated in Jerusalem.

He was educated at the feet of the respected Gamaliel, who was called ‘Rabban’ (our teacher) as against ‘Rabbi’ (my teacher), and was a disciple of Hillel. It was later said of him, ‘Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died there has been no more reverence for the Law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.’ At the time when Paul was speaking he had been dead about five years, and was hugely respected. And it was by him that Paul had been ‘instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers’. Thus his Jewish education was second to none.

He was ‘zealous for God, even as you all are this day’. No one had been more hot under the collar at a whisper of heresy than Paul. His zeal for the God of Israel at least paralleled that of his listeners if not exceeding it.

He had demonstrated his zeal in that he had ‘persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women’. He had hounded down Christians and had committed them to prison, even the women. For a Pharisee to bother about women was zeal indeed, for to a Pharisee women were of little account. And he had sought the death penalty on many. No clearer evidence of dedicated intent could be found. And all because of his zeal for God.

He had been so zealous that he had the high priest as a witness, and all the estate of the elders, that he had received from them letters to the brethren. He had been an official appointee of the highest officials in the land, and it was as that that he had journeyed to Damascus to bring back those who had escaped from Jerusalem and were finding refuge there, hauling them back in bonds to be punished. In his zeal against Christians he had gone to other cities so as to haul back to Jerusalem those who had fled from there.

So his credentials as a Jew, and as a zealous Jew, were impeccable. None had been more zealous than he. And his only desire had been to serve God. This alone must prove his genuineness. And then something had happened which had changed the whole course of his life, something which happened while he was on the way to Damascus to arrest and drag back to Jerusalem fleeing Christians.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 22:3. Brought upat the feet of Gamaliel, Strabo tells us that it was customaryamong the inhabitants of Tarsus, for the young people, when they had gone through a course of education at Rome, to travel abroad for further improvement. Concerning Gamaliel, see on ch. Act 5:34. The phrase of being brought up at his feet, plainly alludes to the posture in which the scholars were usually placed, who sat on the ground, or on low seats, while their teacher was raised on a kind of throne. Hence, in one of the rabbies, “to dust themselves with the dust of their feet,” is a phrase for being a disciple. See on Luk 2:46; Luk 10:39. Instead of taught according to the perfect manner, &c. Dr. Doddridge renders it accurately instructed in the law of our fathers. Vitringa, and some other learned critics, would connect, and as it seems very properly, , taught or instructed, with the foregoing clause, at the feet of Gamaliel, which makes the enumeration more particular;by profession a Jew,born at Tarsus,bred in this city,instructed in the law at the feet of Gamaliel.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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. (4) And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. (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. (6) 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. (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 saw indeed the light, and were afraid; 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 into 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, 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, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, (13) Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. (14) 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. (15) For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. (16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (17) 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; (18) And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. (19) And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (20) And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (21) And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

I would beg to call the Reader’s attention to the grace of God the Holy Ghost, in his love to the Church, in causing the account of Paul’s conversion to be thrice recorded, for their improvement. And I would beg the Reader to pause, and ask himself, whether there must not have been some very pressing reason for it, wherefore the Lord should so have done. Had it been intended only as the history of a matter of fact, once would, in this case, have answered every purpose. But, when we behold it brought forward again, and again, as it is here, and Act 26 . Reader! let us bless God the Holy Ghost for his grace in this particular. And, let us seek grace from the Lord, that the sweet record, so often brought before the Church, may have all the intended effect of it, upon our hearts.

I do not think it necessary to detain the Reader with any further observations on the subject of Paul’s conversion, in this place; having somewhat largely dwelt upon it at the ninth Chapter, where it is first recorded: to which I refer. But, I would take occasion, from what the Apostle hath here added, which was not in that history, being remote from the time that this must have been, to observe, Paul had a second vision of the Lord, and which was not in the road to Demascus, but at Jerusalem. And, I would ask, (but not determine,) was not this the appearing of the Lord Jesus to Paul, which he speaks of? 1Co 9:1 and 1Co 15:8 . And, I would also say, (though not speaking decidedly,) might not this be the time, which Paul speaks of elsewhere, when the Lord taught him about the Ordinance of the Holy Supper, and which, from Christ’s Person, and authority, he received, and delivered to the Church of Corinth, 1Co 11:23 .

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

XV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS

1. What the theme of this section?

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

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

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

5. How, then, could one obtain it?

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

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

8. What Paul’s religious and educational advantages?

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

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

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

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

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

14. What was Paul’s character before conversion?

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

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

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.

Ver. 3. At the feet of Gamaliel ] Among the Jews, the Rabbi sat, termed or the sitter the scholar was called or one that lies along in the dust, a token of the scholar’s humility, subjecting himself even to the feet of his teacher, as here, and Luk 10:39 ; 2Ki 2:5 . Knowest thou not that the Lord will take thy master from thine head? A phrase taken from their manner of sitting in the schools. This, same custom (saith one) it is thought St Paul laboured to bring into the Christian Church,1Co 14:61Co 14:6 . (Godw. Antiq. Heb.)

And was zealous toward God ] With a blind zeal, which is no better than mettle in a blind horse than fire on the chimney top, than the devil in the demoniac, which threw him into the fire sometimes, and sometimes into the water.

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

3. ] De Wette and others would place the comma after , so to make the two clauses, beginning with . and ., exactly correspond. But (not to insist, with Meyer, on the reason that a new circumstance is introduced with each participle) it is surely better, as the rule of the sentence seems to be to place the participles before the words which qualify them, to take . . ., all as the qualification of , and punctuate, as commonly done, after .

On Gamaliel , see note, ch. Act 5:34 .

The expression . . (see ch. Act 4:35 , note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an elevated seat and the scholars on the ground or on benches, literally at his feet .

.] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.) According to the strict acceptation of the law of my fathers; = , ch. Act 26:5 ; i.e. as a Pharisee. So Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 18, .

Some of the older Commentators make governed by ., and take . adverbially: which would give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and carefulness of his education having been already implied in . . .

] Not meaning ‘ in the same way as YE are all this day ’ (but now in another way): but as ye all are this day: ‘I had the same zealous character (not excluding his still retaining it) which you all shew to-day.’ A conciliatory comparison.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 22:3 . . ., see above p. 202. . : although by birth a foreign Jew, yet brought up in Jerusalem, and so belonging to his hearers. It was important for the Apostle to emphasise this, as his close association with Jerusalem had a significant bearing on his future life. The comma best after ., so that each clause begins with a participle, but Weiss places comma after (so De Wette, Hackett). Probably Paul went to Jerusalem not later than thirteen, possibly at eleven, for his training as a teacher of the law. .: only in Luke, cf. Act 7:20-21 , Luk 4:16 (W.H [365] margin), “educated,” so in classical Greek, 4Ma 10:2 ; 4Ma 11:15 , but in latter passage AR . In Wis 7:4 we have (A .). : the more usual attitude for teacher and taught according to the N.T. and the Talmud; according to later Talmudic tradition the sitting on the ground was not customary until after the death of Gamaliel I., J. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. , on Luk 2:46 ; cf. also Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. 1, p. 326, E.T., and Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers , pp. 14, 15, 2nd edit.; even if the later tradition was true, the scholar standing would still be at the feet of his teacher on his raised seat. : noun only here in N.T., but cf. Act 26:5 , “according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers,” R.V., and so practically A.V. For a comment on the words cf. Jos., Ant. , xvii., 2, 4, Vita , 38, and B.J. , ii., 8, 18. : Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah , ii., 314, note on as used by Josephus and St. Paul, Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. ii., p. 54. E.T. Whether therefore . ( 3Ma 1:23 ) included anything besides the Mosaic law or not, the words before us at least refer to the strictness upon which the Pharisees prided themselves in the observance of the law. In Gal 1:14 St. Paul speaks of being a zealot of the traditions handed down from his fathers, , where the traditions are apparently distinguished from the written law, Jos., Ant. , xiii., 16, 2, and 10, 6; but the “oral law” which the scribes developed was apparently equally binding with the written Thorah in the eyes of the Pharisees, Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. ii., pp. 10, 11, E.T., but cf. also Lightfoot, u. s. The word would appeal to the hearts of the people, who loved the Thorah as the chief good, but St. Chrysostom’s words are also to be remembered: “all this seems indeed to be spoken on their side, but in fact it told against them, since he, knowing the law, forsook it” Hom. , xlvii. . : St. Paul might have called himself a zealot of the law, or a zealot of God (Lightfoot, u. s. ), cf. Mal 4:2Mal 4:2 , . , sued of Phinehas, 4Ma 18:12 . : he recognises that their present zeal was a zeal for God, as his own had been, , Rom 10:2 : argumentum concilians , Bengel.

[365] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 22:3-5

3″I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today. 4I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, 5as also the high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify. From them I also received letters to the brethren, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished.”

Act 22:3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus” Paul is trying to identify himself with this Jewish crowd. He is asserting his Jewishness (cf. 2 Cor. 12:22; Php 3:5-6). He would have been considered a Greek-speaking Jew of the diaspora.

The phrase “but brought up in this city” can refer grammatically either to (1) Tarsus or (2) Jerusalem. Contextually, Jerusalem is implied. If so, then Paul’s training in Greek rhetoric must have occurred somewhere besides Tarsus.

“educated under Gamaliel” This was a very respected rabbi (cf. Act 5:34-40). He is quoted in the Mishnah several times. Paul was a student of the liberal rabbinical school of Hillel. This crowd would have been impressed by this statement. See SPECIAL TOPIC: GAMALIEL at Act 5:34.

“strictly according to the law of our fathers” This would imply that he was a Pharisee (cf. Act 23:6; Act 26:5) and a zealous one at that (cf. Act 22:4; Gal 1:14; Php 3:6). The Pharisees were committed to stringent obedience to the Oral Traditions (i.e., Talmud), which interpreted the Old Testament.

“as you all are today” Paul acknowledges their enthusiasm and commitment. He was once like them!

Act 22:4 “I persecuted” Throughout Paul’s ministry he looked back on these days with deep regret. He mentions this often (cf. Act 9:1; Act 9:13; Act 9:21; Act 22:4; Act 22:19; Act 26:10-11; Gal 1:13; Gal 1:23; Php 3:6; 1Ti 1:13). Paul often refers to himself as the least of the saints because of these actions (cf. 1Co 15:9; 2Co 12:11; Eph 3:8; 1Ti 1:15).

“this Way” This was the earliest name for the Christian Church (cf. Act 9:2; Act 19:9; Act 19:23; Act 22:4; Act 28:14; Act 28:22). It refers to

1. Jesus as “the Way” (cf. Joh 14:6)

2. biblical faith as a lifestyle (cf. Deu 5:32-33; Deu 31:29; Psa 27:11; Isa 35:8)

“to the death” Paul had some Christians put to death (cf. Act 8:1; Act 8:3; Act 26:10)! He was surely involved in Stephen’s death (cf. Act 7:58; Act 8:1).

“binding and putting both men and women into prisons” The fact that Paul did this to women really shows the intensity of his persecutions.

Act 22:5 Paul is sharing the circumstances that led up to his Damascus road conversion to faith in Jesus (cf. Acts 9).

“the Council of the elders” This is literally “all the elders.” Luke uses this same term for the Sanhedrin in Luk 22:66. This is not the normal term used of this official body of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (Sanhedrin). It may have referred to a small administrative sub-committee.

“I also received letters” F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, has an interesting discussion and documentation of the Sanhedrin’s rights of extradition from surrounding countries (p. 72). For more historical information see 1Ma 15:21 and Falvius Josephus.

“those who were there” This phrase implies that these were believing Jews who had fled the persecution in Jerusalem.

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

verily. Texts omit.

man. Greek. aner. App-123.

in Cilicia = of Cilicia.

brought up. Greek. anatrepho. Only here and Act 7:20, Act 7:21.

Gamaliel. See note on Act 5:34. Only mentioned in these two places.

taught. Greek. paideuo, to train a child (pais), instruct, chastise. See Act 7:22. Luk 23:16, Luk 23:22.

according to. Greek. kata. App-104.

perfect manner. Literally accuracy. Greek. akribeia. Only here. Much used by medical writers.

of the fathers. Greek. patroos, pertaining to the fathers. Only here, Act 24:14; Act 28:17.

and was = being. Gr huparcho. See note on Luk 9:48.

zealous. See note on Act 21:20.

toward = of, i.e. a zealot in behalf of. Compare Php 1:3, Php 1:5, Php 1:6.

God. App-98.

as ye, &c. This was to conciliate them. Figure of speech Protherapeia. App-6.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3.] De Wette and others would place the comma after , so to make the two clauses, beginning with . and ., exactly correspond. But (not to insist, with Meyer, on the reason that a new circumstance is introduced with each participle) it is surely better, as the rule of the sentence seems to be to place the participles before the words which qualify them, to take . . ., all as the qualification of , and punctuate, as commonly done, after .

On Gamaliel, see note, ch. Act 5:34.

The expression . . (see ch. Act 4:35, note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an elevated seat and the scholars on the ground or on benches, literally at his feet.

.] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.) According to the strict acceptation of the law of my fathers; = , ch. Act 26:5;-i.e. as a Pharisee. So Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 18, .

Some of the older Commentators make governed by ., and take . adverbially: which would give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and carefulness of his education having been already implied in . . .

] Not meaning in the same way as YE are all this day (but now in another way): but as ye all are this day: I had the same zealous character (not excluding his still retaining it) which you all shew to-day. A conciliatory comparison.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 22:3. , I) By this defence the cry is refuted of which ch. Act 21:28 treated. For the weightiest reasons, and in a peculiar way, Paul speaks so much as he does concerning himself in this passage and ch. Act 26:4-5. Comp. 1Pe 2:9.-, indeed) There follows but, in Act 22:6.-, a man) This speech has a singular degree of and distinctness.- , at the feet) Again in turn, the teacher is said to be from the head [a capite, at or on the head] of his disciple: 2Ki 2:3, The Lord will take away thy master from thy head to-day. The teacher sits: the disciple sits in a lower place, or else stands; sometimes disciples even prostrated themselves.-, the truth, the accurate or perfect manner) the choice (carefully sought out) mode of teaching, peculiar to the Pharisees: ch. Act 26:5.- , zealous towards God) is a word intermediate between a good and bad sense: , one zealous towards God, is used as , a zeal of God, or a zeal towards God, Rom 10:2. Both passages have some degree of Mimesis [allusion to the language or sentiments of another, whom we are refuting]: for the Jews thought, that they gave honour to God in proportion as they detracted (derogated) from Jesus Christ.-, even as) A conciliatory argument.-, ye) ch. Act 21:28; Act 21:36.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Jew: Act 21:39, Rom 11:1, 2Co 11:22, Phi 3:5

in Tarsus: Act 9:11, Act 9:30, Act 11:25

a city: Act 6:9, Act 15:23, Act 15:41, Act 23:34, Gal 1:21

at: Deu 33:3, 2Ki 4:38, Luk 2:46, Luk 8:35, Luk 10:39

Gamaliel: Act 5:34

taught: Act 23:6, Act 26:5, Gal 1:14, Phi 3:5

was: Act 21:20, 2Sa 21:2, Rom 10:2, Rom 10:3, Gal 4:17, Gal 4:18, Phi 3:6

Reciprocal: Lev 13:29 – General Num 25:13 – zealous 2Ki 2:3 – thy master Eze 14:1 – and sat Eze 20:1 – and sat Dan 4:2 – that Luk 4:24 – No Joh 16:2 – the time Act 5:21 – But Act 8:3 – General Act 26:4 – which Act 27:5 – Cilicia Gal 1:13 – ye 2Ti 1:3 – whom

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3

Act 22:3. A part of Paul’s defence consisted in answering the question of the chief captain in chapter 21:33 as to “who he was.” He was a Jew of Tarsus, which was recognized even by the Romans as an important city, to the extent that Augustus had made it a “free city,” which means that all of its population would be classed as Roman citizens with all the privileges and honors accorded to such residents. As to Paul’s cultural training, he had been instructed in Jerusalem by Ga-maliel, a great teacher of the law. As to his religious attitude, he was as zealous toward God as were these Jews before him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 22:3. I am verily a man which am a Jew. He starts at once with a statement calculated to allay the suspicions with which many of those who were infuriated against him, without knowing any thing really of his story, regarded him. I was a Jew, he tells them.

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 our fathers. And, although born, he goes on to say, in the distant Gentile city of Tarsus, yet it was here, in our Holy City, that I received my education. My master was none other than the famous R. Gamaliel, so well known to every Jew. In those days I was trained by that great master as a Pharisee, to love and to practise all the strictness of our ancestral law. [See the Galatian Epistle, Act 1:13-14, where he speaks of his pre-eminence in those far-back days in all this learning, and how none of his fellow-students were able to compete with him in his knowledge of the law, and in his fervent zeal for the old sacred traditions of the Fathers.] The expression, at the feet of Gamaliel, is strictly accurate. In the Jewish schools, the teacher sat and taught from a raised seat; the pupils sat round on low benches or on the floor, literally at the masters feet.

And was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. What ye are now; said the apostle, I was oncea zealot, a word well known in the extremest phases of the religious life of that disastrous period in Juda, a zealot for what I deemed was for the honour of God.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 22:3-5. I am verily a Jew, &c. This defence answers all that is objected, Act 21:28. But he speaks closely and nervously, in a few words, because the time was short; born in Tarsus, yet brought up in this city For my parents were so warmly attached to their religion, and so desirous that I might be well instructed in it, that they sent me to be educated here; at the feet of Gamaliel That celebrated teacher. See note on Act 5:34. The phrase of being brought up at his feet, plainly alludes to the posture in which the scholars were usually placed, sitting on low seats, or upon mats, on the floor, at the feet of their masters, whose seats were raised to a considerable height. Taught according to the perfect manner of the law Or, accurately instructed in the law: which learned education was once, doubtless, the matter of his boasting and confidence; but, not being sanctified, it made his bonds strong, and furnished him with numerous arguments against the gospel. Yet, when the grace of God had changed his heart, and turned his accomplishments into another channel, he was the fitter instrument to serve Gods wise and merciful purposes, in the defence and propagation of Christianity. And I persecuted this way With the same zeal that ye do now; binding both men and women Who professed and practised it, without any regard to sex, age, or quality. How much better was his condition now he was bound himself! The high-priest doth bear me witness Is able to testify; and all the estate of the elders All the other members of the sanhedrim; from whom also I received letters unto the brethren The Jews (for this title was not peculiar to the Christians) empowering me to act against those for whom I have now so great a regard. And went to Damascus, &c. See note on c Act 9:1-2.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3-16. (3) “And he said, I myself am a Jew; born in Tarsus of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strictest doctrine of the law of our fathers, and was zealous toward God as you all are this day. (4) I persecuted this way, even to death; binding and delivering into prisons both men and women; (5) as the high priest and the whole body of the elders are my witnesses: from whom, also, I received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring those who were there bound to Jerusalem, that they might be punished. (6) But it came to pass, as I journeyed and was drawing near to Damascus, about noon, a great light from heaven suddenly flashed around me. (7) I fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? He said to me, I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you persecute. (9) Now, they who were with me saw the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spoke to me. (10) And I said, Lord, what shall I do? And the Lord said to me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all things which are appointed for thee to do. (11) And, as I could not see for the glory of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and went into Damascus. (12) And one Ananias, a pious man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who dwelt there, (13) came to me, and stood, and said to me, Brother Saul, look up. And that moment I looked up upon him. (14) And he said, The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will, and to see the Just One, and to hear the voice of his mouth. (15) For you shall be a witness for him to all men, of what you have seen and heard. (16) And now, why do you tarry? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Such portions of this speech as are necessary to the full understanding of Paul’s conversion, we have considered in commenting on the ninth chapter. The words of Ananias, “Arise and be immersed,” probably demand a moment’s additional notice, on account of the use which has been made of them by many pedobaptist writers and speakers of an inferior grade. It is urged that the words should be rendered, “Standing up, be baptized;” and that they indicate that Paul was baptized on the spot, without leaving the house. We might admit the rendering without granting the conclusion; for the command to be baptized required him to do whatever was necessary to that act. If the act was immersion, it required him to go where it could be performed, however great the distance, and the words are entirely consistent with that idea. If he was to be immersed, he must, of necessity, arise from his prostrate or sitting position for that purpose. If he was to be sprinkled, he might as well have remained, as candidates for that ceremony now commonly do, upon his knees.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 3

At the feet of Gamaliel; under the instruction of Gamaliel.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

22:3 {1} I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the {a} 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.

(1) Paul, making a short declaration of his former life, proves both his calling and doctrine to be from God.

(a) That is, his daily hearer: the reason of this speech is this: those who teach commonly sit in the higher place, speaking to their students who sit upon benches beneath, and therefore he says “at the feet of Gamaliel”.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul began by relating his manner of life before his conversion. He emphasized his orthodox background and education under the most respected Jewish teacher of his day, Gamaliel (cf. Act 5:34). We have no record of how old Paul was when he came to Jerusalem in his youth. It is possible that he spent his early childhood in Jerusalem. [Note: W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth, pp. 9, 28.] Others believe he spent this part of his life in Tarsus. [Note: E.g., Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, pp. 25-27.] It is possible that Paul was 13 or 14 years old when he came to Jerusalem. [Note: Robertson, 3:386.] The difference in interpretation springs from two different ways of punctuating this verse. Paul’s point in citing his background was to show his hearers that he was as zealous for his Jewish heritage as any of them (cf. Gal 1:14).

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

Chapter 1

THE TRAINING OF SAUL THE RABBI

Act 7:58; Act 22:3

THE appearance of St. Paul upon the stage of Christian history marks a period of new development and of more enlarged activity. The most casual reader of the Acts of the Apostles must see that a personality of vast power, force, individuality, has now entered the bounds of the Church, and that henceforth St. Paul, his teaching, methods, and actions, will throw all others into the shade. Modern German critics have seized upon this undoubted fact and made it the foundation on which they have built elaborate theories concerning St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Some of them have made St. Paul the inventor of a new form of Christianity, more elaborate, artificial, and dogmatic than the simple religion of nature which, as they think, Jesus Christ taught. Others have seen in St. Paul the great rival and antagonist of St. Peter, and have seen in the Acts a deliberate attempt to reconcile the opposing factions of Peter and Paul by representing St. Pauls career as modelled upon that of Peter. These theories are, we believe, utterly groundless; but they show at the same time what an important event in early Church history St. Pauls conversion was, and how necessary a thorough comprehension of his life and training if we wish to understand the genesis of our holy religion.

Who and whence, then, was this enthusiastic man who is first introduced to our notice in connection with St. Stephens martyrdom? What can we glean from Scripture and from secular history concerning his earlier career? I am not going to attempt to do what Conybeare and Howson thirty years ago, or Archdeacon Farrar in later times, have executed with a wealth of learning and a profuseness of imagination which I could not pretend to possess. Even did I possess them it would be impossible, for want of space, to write such a biography of St. Paul as these authors have given to the public. Let us, however, strive to gather up such details of St. Pauls early life and training as the New Testament, illustrated by history, sets before us. Perhaps we shall find that more is told us than strikes the ordinary superficial reader. His parentage is known to us from St. Pauls own statement. His father and mother were Jews of the Dispersion, as the Jews scattered abroad amongst the Gentiles were usually called; they were residents at Tarsus in Cilicia, and by profession belonged to the Pharisees who then formed the more spiritual and earnest religious section of the Jewish people. We learn this from three passages. In his defence before the Council, recorded in Act 23:6, he tells us that he was “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.” There was no division in religious feeling between the parents. His home life and his earliest years knew nothing of religious jars and strife. Husband and wife were joined not only in the external bonds of marriage, but in the profounder union still of spiritual sentiment and hope, a memory which may have inspired a deeper meaning, begotten of personal experience in the warning delivered to the Corinthians, “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.” Of the history of his parents and ancestors we know practically nothing more for certain, but we can glean a little from other notices. St. Paul tells us that he belonged to a special division among the Jews, of which we have spoken a good deal in the former volume when dealing with St. Stephen. The Jews at this period were divided into Hebrews and Hellenists: that is, Hebrews who by preference and in their ordinary practice spoke the Hebrew tongue, and Hellenists who spoke Greek and adopted Greek civilisation and customs. St. Paul tells us in Php 3:5 that he was “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews,” a statement which he substantially repeats in 2Co 11:22. Now it was almost an impossibility for a Jew of the Dispersion to belong to the Hebrews. His lot was cast in a foreign land, his business mixed him up with the surrounding pagans so that the use of the Greek language was an absolute necessity; while the universal practice of his fellow-countrymen in conforming themselves to Greek customs, Greek philosophy, and Greek civilisation rendered the position of one who would stand out for the old Jewish national ideas and habits a very trying and a very peculiar one. Here, however, comes in an ancient tradition, recorded by St. Jerome, which throws some light upon the difficulty. Scripture tells us that St. Paul was born at Tarsus. Our Lord in His conversation with Ananias in Act 9:2, calls him “Saul of Tarsus,” while again the Apostle himself in the twenty-second chapter describes himself as “a Jew born in Tarsus.” But then the question arises, how came his parents to Tarsus, and how, being in Tarsus, could they be described as Hebrews while all around and about them their countrymen were universally Hellenists? St. Jerome here steps in to help us. He relates, in his “Catalogue of Illustrious Writers,” that “Paul the Apostle, previously called Saul, being outside the number of the Twelve, was of the tribe of Benjamin and of the city of the Jewish Gischala; on the capture of which by the Romans he migrated with them to Tarsus.” Now this statement of Jerome, written four hundred years after the event, is clearly inaccurate in many respects, and plainly contradicts the Apostles own words that he was born in Tarsus.

But yet the story probably embodies a tradition substantially true, that St. Pauls parents were originally from Galilee. Galilee was intensely Hebrew. It was provincial, and the provinces are always far less affected by advance in thought or in religion than the towns, which are the chosen homes of innovation and of progress. Hellenism might flourish in Jerusalem, but in Galilee it would not be tolerated; and the tough, sturdy Galileans alone would have moral and religious grit enough to maintain the old Hebrew customs and language; even amid the abounding inducements to an opposite course which a great commercial centre like Tarsus held out. Assuredly our own experience affords many parallels illustrating the religious history of St. Pauls family. The Evangelical revival, the development of ritual in the Church of England, made their mark first of all in the towns, and did not affect the distant country districts till long after. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands is almost a different religion from the more enlightened and more cultured worship of Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Low Church and Orange developments of Ulster bring us back to the times of the last century, and seem passing strange to the citizens of London, Manchester, or Dublin, who first make their acquaintance in districts where obsolete ideas and cries still retain a power quite forgotten in the vast tide of life and thought which sways the great cities. And yet these rural backwaters, as we may call them, retain their influence, and show strong evidence of life even in the great cities; and so it is that even in London and Edinburgh and Glasgow and Dublin congregations continue to exist in their remoter districts and back streets where the prejudices and ideas of the country find full sway and exercise. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands and the Orangeism of Ulster will be sought in vain in fashionable churches, but in smaller assemblies they will be found exercising a sway and developing a life which will often astonish a superficial observer.

So it was doubtless in Tarsus. The Hebrews of Galilee would delight to separate themselves. They would look down upon the Hellenism of their fellow-countrymen as a sad falling away from ancient orthodoxy, but their declension would only add a keener zest to the zeal with which the descendants of the Hebrews of Gischala, even in the third and fourth generations, as it may have been, would retain the ancient customs and language of their Galilean forefathers.

St. Paul and his parents might seem to an outsider mere Hellenists, but their Galilean origin and training enabled them to retain the intenser Judaism which qualified the Apostle to describe himself as not only of the stock of Israel, but as a Hebrew of the Hebrews.

St. Pauls more immediate family connections have also some light thrown upon them in the New Testament. We learn, for instance, from Act 23:16, that he had a married sister, who probably lived at Jerusalem, and may have been even a convert to Christianity; for we are told that her son, having heard of the Jewish plot to murder the Apostle, at once reported it to St. Paul himself, who thereupon put his nephew into communication with the chief captain in whose custody he lay. While again, in Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11, he sends salutations to Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, his kinsmen, who were residents in Rome; and in verse 21 {Rom 16:21} of the same chapter joins Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, his kinsmen, with himself in the Christian wishes for the welfare of the Roman Church, with which he closes the Epistle. It is said, indeed, that this may mean simply that these men were Jews, and that St. Paul regarded all Jews as his kinsmen. But this notion is excluded by the form of the twenty-first verse, where he first sends greetings from Timothy, whom St. Paul dearly loved, and who was a circumcised Jew, not a proselyte merely, but a true Jew, on his mothers side, at least; and then the Apostle proceeds to name the persons whom he designates his kinsmen. St. Paul evidently belonged to a family of some position in the Jewish world, whose ramifications were dispersed into very distant quarters of the empire. Every scrap of information which we can gain concerning the early life and associations of such a man is very precious; we may therefore point out that we can even get a glimpse of the friends and acquaintances of his earliest days. Barnabas the Levite was of Cyprus, an island only seventy miles distant from Tarsus, In all probability Barnabas may have resorted to the Jewish schools of Tarsus, or may have had some other connections with the Jewish colony of that city. Some such early friendship may have been the link which bound Paul to Barnabas and enabled the latter to stand sponsor for the newly converted Saul when the Jerusalem Church was yet naturally suspicious of him. “And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles.” {Act 9:26-27} This ancient friendship enabled Barnabas to pursue the Apostle with those offices of consolation which his nascent faith demanded. He knew Sauls boyhood haunts, and therefore it is we read in Act 11:25 that “Barnabas went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul” when a multitude of the Gentiles began to pour into the Church of Antioch. Barnabas knew his old friends vigorous, enthusiastic character, his genius, his power of adaptation, and therefore he brought him back to Antioch, where for a whole year they were joined in one holy brotherhood of devout and successful labour for their Master. The friendships and love of boyhood and of youth received a new consecration and were impressed with a loftier ideal from the example of Saul and of Barnabas.

Then again there are other friends of his youth to whom he refers. Timothys family lived at Lystra, and Lystra was directly connected with Tarsus by a great road which ran straight from Tarsus to Ephesus, offering means for that frequent communication in which the Jews ever delighted. St. Pauls earliest memories carried him back to the devout atmosphere of the pious Jewish family at Lystra, which he had long known, where Lois the grandmother and Eunice the mother had laid the foundations of that spiritual life which under St. Pauls own later teaching flourished so wondrously in the life of Timothy. Let us pass on, however, to a period of later development. St. Pauls earliest teaching at first was doubtless that of the home. As with Timothy so with the Apostle; his earliest religious teacher was doubtless his mother, who from his infancy imbued him with the great rudimentary truths which lie at the basis of both the Jewish and the Christian faith. His father too took his share. He was a Pharisee, and would be anxious to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law and every minute rule which the Jewish doctors had deduced by an attention and a subtlety concentrated for ages upon the text of the Old Testament. And one great doctor had laid down, “When a boy begins to speak, his father ought to talk with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law”; a rule which would exactly fall in with his fathers natural inclination. He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, though dwelling among Hellenists. He prided himself on speaking the Hebrew language alone, and he therefore would take the greatest pains that the future Apostles earliest teachings should be in that same sacred tongue, giving him from boyhood that command over Hebrew and its dialects which he afterwards turned to the best of uses.

At five years old Jewish children of parents like St. Pauls advanced to the direct study of the law under the guidance of some doctor, whose school they daily attended, as another rabbi had expressly enacted, “At five years old a boy should apply himself to the study of Holy Scripture.” Between five and thirteen Saul was certainly educated at Tarsus, during which period his whole attention was concentrated upon sacred learning and upon mechanical or industrial training. It was at this period of his life that St. Paul must have learned the trade of tent making, which during the last thirty years of his life stood him in such good stead, rendering him independent of all external aid so far as his bodily wants were concerned. A question has often been raised as to the social position of St. Pauls family; and people, bringing their Western ideas with them, have thought that the manual trade which he was taught betokened their humble rank. But this is quite a mistake. St. Pauls family must have occupied at least a fairly comfortable position, when they were able to send a member of their house to Jerusalem to be taught in the most celebrated rabbinical school of the time. But it was the law of that school – and a very useful law it was too – that every Jew, and especially every teacher, should possess a trade by which he might be supported did necessity call for it. It was a common proverb among the Jews at that time that “He who taught not his son a trade taught him to be a thief.” “It is incumbent on the father to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him the law, and to teach him some occupation, for, as Rabbi Judah saith, whosoever teacheth not his son to do some work is as if he taught him robbery.” “Rabbin Gamaliel saith, He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? He is like to a vineyard that is fenced.” Such was the authoritative teaching of the schools, and Jewish practice was in accordance therewith. Some of the most celebrated rabbis of that time were masters of a mechanical art or trade. The vice-president of the Sanhedrin was a merchant for four years, and then devoted himself to the study of the law. One rabbi was a shoemaker; Rabbi Juda, the great Cabalist, was a tailor; Rabbi Jose was brought up as a tanner; another rabbi as a baker, and yet another as a carpenter. And so as a preparation for the office and life work to which his father had destined him, St. Paul during his earlier years was taught one of the common trades of Tarsus, which consisted in making tents either out of the hair or the skin of the Angora goats which browsed over the hills of central Asia Minor. It was a trade that was common among Jews. Aquila and his wife Priscilla were tent-makers, and therefore St. Paul united himself to them and wrought at his trade in their company at Corinth. {Act 18:3} It has often been asserted that at this period of his life St. Paul must have studied Greek philosophy and literature, and men have pointed to his quotations from the Greek poets Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander, to prove the attention which the Apostle must have bestowed upon them. {See Act 17:28, Tit 1:12, 1Co 15:33} Tarsus was certainly one of the great universities of that age, ranking in the first place along with Athens and Alexandria. So great was its fame that the Roman emperors even were wont to go to Tarsus to look for rotors to instruct their sons. But Tarsus was at the very same time one of the most morally degraded spots within the bounds of the Roman world, and it is not at all likely that a strict Hebrew, a stern Pharisee, would have allowed his son to encounter the moral taint involved in freely mixing with such a degraded people and in the free study of a literature permeated through and through with sensuality and idolatry. St. Paul doubtless at this early period of his life gained that colloquial knowledge of Greek which was every day becoming more and more necessary for the ordinary purposes of secular life all over the Roman Empire, even in the most backward parts of Palestine. But it is not likely that his parents would have sanctioned his attendance at the lectures on philosophy and poetry delivered at the University of Tarsus, where he would have been initiated into all the abominations of paganism in a style most attractive to human nature.

At thirteen years of age, or thereabouts, young Saul, having now learned all the sacred knowledge which the local rabbis could teach, went up to Jerusalem just as our Lord did, to assume the full obligations of a Jew and to pursue his higher studies at the great Rabbinical University of Jerusalem. To put it in modern language, Saul went up to Jerusalem to be confirmed and admitted to the full privileges and complete obligations of the Levitical Law, and he also went up to enter college. St. Paul himself describes the period of life on which he now entered as that in which he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. We have already touched in a prior volume upon the subject of Gamaliels history and his relation to Christianity, but here it is necessary to say something of him as a teacher, in which capacity he laid the foundations of modes of thought and reasoning, the influence of which moulded St. Pauls whole soul and can be traced all through St. Pauls Epistles.

Gamaliel is an undoubtedly historical personage. The introduction of him in the Acts of the Apostles is simply another instance of that marvellous historical accuracy which every fresh investigation and discovery show to be a distinguishing feature of this book. The Jewish Talmud was not committed to writing for more than four centuries after Gamaliels time, and yet it presents Gamaliel to us in exactly the same light as the inspired record does, telling us that “with the death of Gamaliel I the reverence for the Divine law ceased, and the observance of purity and abstinence departed.” Gamaliel came of a family distinguished in Jewish history both before and after his own time. He was of the royal House of David, and possessed in this way great historical claims upon the respect of the nation. His grandfather Hillel and his father Simeon were celebrated teachers and expounders of the law. His grandfather had founded indeed one of the leading schools of interpretation then favoured by the rabbis. His father Simeon is said by some to have been the aged man who took up the infant Christ in his arms and blessed God for His revealed salvation in the words of the “Nunc Dimittis”; while, as for Gamaliel himself, his teaching was marked by wisdom, prudence, liberality, and spiritual depth, so far as such qualities could exist in a professor of rabbinical learning. Gamaliel was a friend and contemporary of Philo, and this fact alone must have imported an element of liberality into his teaching. Philo was a widely read scholar who strove to unite the philosophy of Greece to the religion of Palestine, and Philos ideas must have permeated more or less into some at least of the schools of Jerusalem, so that, though St. Paul may not have come in contact with Greek literature in Tarsus, he may very probably have learned much about it in a Judaised, purified, spiritualised shape in Jerusalem. But the influence exercised on St. Paul by Gamaliel and through him by Philo, or men of his school, can be traced in other respects.

The teaching of Gamaliel was as spiritual, I have said, as rabbinical teaching could have been; but this is not saying very much from the Christian point of view. The schools at Jerusalem in the time of Gamaliel were wholly engaged in studies of the most wearisome, narrow, petty, technical kind. Dr. Farrar has illustrated this subject with a great wealth of learning and examples in the fourth chapter of his “Life of St. Paul.” The Talmud alone shows this, throwing a fearful light upon the denunciations of our Lord as regards the Pharisees, for it devotes a whole treatise to washings of the hands, and another to the proper method of killing fowls. The Pharisaic section of the Jews held, indeed, that there were two hundred and forty-eight commandments and three hundred and sixty-five prohibitions involved in the Jewish Law, all of them equally binding, and all of them so searching that if only one solitary Jew could be found who for one day kept them all and transgressed in no one direction, then the captivity of Gods people would cease and the Messiah would appear.

I am obliged to pass over this point somewhat rapidly, and yet it is a most important one if we desire to know what kind of training the Apostle received; for, no matter how Gods grace may descend and the Divine Spirit may change the main directions of a mans life, he never quite recovers himself from the effects of his early teaching. Dr. Farrar has bestowed much time and labour on this point. The following brief extract from his eloquent word, will give a vivid idea of the endless puerilities, the infinite questions of pettiest, most minute, and most subtle bearing with which the time of St. Paul and his fellow-students must have been taken up, and which must have made him bitterly feel in the depths of his inmost being that, though the law may have been originally intended as a source of life, it had been certainly changed as regards his own particular case, and had become unto him an occasion of death.

“Moreover, was there not mingled with all this nominal adoration of the Law a deeply seated hypocrisy, so deep that it was in a great measure unconscious? Even before the days of Christ the rabbis had learnt the art of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. They had long learnt to nullify what they professed to defend. The ingenuity of Hillel was quite capable of getting rid of any Mosaic regulation which had been found practically burdensome. Pharisees and Sadducees alike had managed to set aside in their own favour, by the devices of the mixtures, all that was disagreeable to themselves in the Sabbath scrupulosity. The fundamental institution of the Sabbatic year had been stultified by the mere legal fiction of the Prosbol. Teachers who were on the high road to a casuistry which could construct rules out of every superfluous particle, had found it easy to win credit for ingenuity by elaborating prescriptions to which Moses would have listened in mute astonishment. If there be one thing more definitely laid down in the Law than another, it is the uncleanness of creeping things; yet the Talmud assures us that no one is appointed a member of the Sanhedrin who does not possess sufficient ingenuity to prove from the written Law that a creeping thing is ceremonially clean; and that there was an unimpeachable disciple at Jabne who could adduce one hundred and fifty arguments in favour of the ceremonial cleanness of creeping things. Sophistry like this was at work even in the days when the young student of Tarsus sat at the feet of Gamaliel; and can we imagine any period of his life when he would not have been wearied by a system at once so meaningless, so stringent, and so insincere?”

These words are true, thoroughly true, in their extremest sense. Casuistry is at all times a dangerous weapon with which to play, a dangerous science upon which to concentrate ones attention. The mind is so pleased with the fascination of the precipice that one is perpetually tempted to see how near an approach can be made without a catastrophe, and then the catastrophe happens when it is least expected. But when the casuists attention is concentrated upon one volume like the law of Moses, interpreted in the thousand methods and combinations open to the luxuriant imagination of the East, then indeed the danger is infinitely increased, and we cease to wonder at the vivid, burning, scorching denunciations of the Lord as He proclaimed the sin of those who enacted that “Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.” St. Pauls whole time must have been taken up in the school of Gamaliel with an endless study of such casuistical trifles; and yet that period of his life left marks which we can clearly trace throughout his writings. The method, for instance, in which St. Paul quotes the Old Testament is thoroughly rabbinical. It was derived from the rules prevalent in the Jewish schools, and therefore, though it may seem to us at times forced and unnatural, must have appeared to St. Paul and to the men of his time absolutely conclusive. When reading the Scriptures we Westerns forget the great difference between Orientals and the nations of Western Europe. Aristotle and his logic and his logical methods, with major and minor premises and conclusions following therefrom, absolutely dominate our thoughts. The Easterns knew nothing of Aristotle, and his methods availed nothing to their minds. They argued in quite a different style, and used a logic which he would have simply scorned. Analogy, allegory, illustration, form the staple elements of Eastern logic, and in their use St. Paul was elaborately trained in Gamaliels classes, and of their use his writings furnish abundant examples; the most notable of which will be found in his allegorical interpretation of the events of the wilderness journey of Israel in 1Co 10:1-4, where the pillar of cloud, and the passage of the Red Sea, and the manna, and the smitten rock become the emblems and types of the Christian Sacraments; and again, in St. Pauls mystical explanation of Gal 4:21-31, where Hagar and Sarah are represented as typical of the two covenants, the old covenant leading to spiritual bondage and the new introducing to gospel freedom.

These, indeed, are the most notable examples of St. Pauls method of exegesis derived from the school of Gamaliel, but there are numberless others scattered all through his writings. If we view them through Western spectacles, we shall be disappointed and miss their force; but if we view them sympathetically, if we remember that the Jews quoted and studied the Old Testament to find illustrations of their own ideas rather than proofs in our sense of the word, studied them as an enthusiastic Shakespeare or Tennyson or Wordsworth student pores over his favourite author to find parallels which others, who are less bewitched, find very slight and very dubious indeed, then we shall come to see how it is that St. Paul quotes an illustration of his doctrine of justification by faith from Hab 2:4 – “The soul of the proud man is not upright, but the just man shall live by his steadfastness”; a passage which originally applied to the Chaldeans and the Jews, predicting that the former should enjoy no stable prosperity, but that the Jews, ideally represented as the just or upright man, should live securely because of their fidelity; and can find an allusion to the resurrection of Christ in “the sure mercies of David,” which God had promised to give His people in the third verse of the fifty-fifth of Isaiah.

Rabbinical learning, Hebrew discipline, Greek experience and life, these conspired together with natural impulse and character to frame and form and mould a man who must make his mark upon the world at large in whatever direction he chooses for his walk in life. It will now be our duty to show what were the earliest results of this very varied education.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary