Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:5
As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
5. the high priest doth bear me witness ] The Apostle refers not to the high priest at the time when he was speaking, but to him who had held that office when (Act 9:1) in his earnestness against the Christians he had desired a commission from the authorities to carry his persecuting measures as far as Damascus. Josephus ( Ant. xviii. 5, 3) tells us that in a.d. 37 Theophilus, son of Ananus, was made high priest in the place of his brother Jonathan. The high priest to whom St Paul here alludes was one of these two brothers, for Theophilus held office till he was removed by Agrippa and his place occupied by Simon, called Kantheras (see Jos. Ant, xix. 6, 2, and cp. Farrar’s St Paul, i. 178). Ananias was high priest at the time of St Paul’s arrest. See Act 23:2.
and all the estate of the elders ] Though it was now more than twenty years since St Paul’s conversion, yet it was not improbable that some members of the Sanhedrin which granted him his commission were still alive, and the records of the transaction were doubtless preserved and could be appealed to.
letters unto the brethren ] i.e. to the Jewish authorities in Damascus. The Jews spake of all their race as brethren from early times (cp. Deu 18:15).
to bring them which were there, bound unto Jerusalem ] The English of the A. V. is not free from ambiguity. The Greek is plain, and the Rev. Ver. gives the sense clearly “to bring them also which were there unto Jerusalem in bonds.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
As also the high priest … – See the notes on Act 9:2.
All the estate of the elders – Greek: all the presbytery; that is, the whole body of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the nation.
Unto the brethren – The Jewish brethren who were at Damascus. Paul here speaks as a Jew, and regards his countrymen as his brethren.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. The high priest doth bear me witness, c.] He probably referred to the letters of authority which he had received from the high priest, and the whole estate of the elders, , the whole of the presbytery, that is, the sanhedrin and it is likely, that he had those letters to produce. This zeal of his against Christianity was an ample proof of his sincerity as a Pharisaical Jew.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The estate of the elders; their sanhedrim or great council.
Letters; commission or orders.
The brethren; the Jews of Damascus are called brethren, because they descended from the patriarchs as well as he. And still, as Act 22:1, he would overcome that stubborn people with civility, heaping up coals of fire on their heads, Rom 12:20, that they might be melted, and then formed after a more excellent manner.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. the high prieststillalive.
doth bear me witness, and allthe estate of the eldersthe whole Sanhedrim.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
As also the high priest doth bear me witness,…. Either Annas, or Caiaphas, who was at that time high priest; and it should seem by this, that he was still in being; or else that the apostle had preserved his letter, written with his own hand, which he was able to produce at any time, as a testimony of the truth of what he had said, or was about to say; since he speaks of him (as now) bearing him witness, or as one that could:
and all the estate of the elders; the whole Jewish sanhedrim, for this character respects not men in years, but men in office, and such who were members of the high court of judicature in Jerusalem;
from whom also I received letters unto the brethren; some render it “against the brethren”, as if the Christians were meant; whereas the apostle intends the Jews of the synagogue at Damascus, whom the apostle calls brethren; because they were of the same nation, and his kinsmen according to the flesh; and, at that time, of the same religion and principles with him; and this is put out of doubt, by the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, which render it, “the brethren that were at Damascus”: and these letters were to recommend him to them, and to empower him to persecute the Christians, and to demand and require their assistance in it; the Ethiopic version calls them, “letters of power”; and it seems from hence, that these letters were received from the whole sanhedrim, as well as from the high priest, and were signed by both:
and went to Damascus to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished: with stripes, or with death, as they should be judged worthy; see Ac 9:2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Doth bear me witness ( ). Present active indicative as if still living. Caiaphas was no longer high priest now, for Ananias is at this time (23:2), though he may be still alive.
All the estate of the elders ( ). All the eldership or the Sanhedrin (4:5) of which Paul was probably then a member (26:10). Possibly some of those present were members of the Sanhedrin then (some 20 odd years ago).
From whom (‘ ). The high priest and the Sanhedrin.
Letters unto the brethren ( ). Paul still can tactfully call the Jews his “brothers” as he did in Ro 9:3. There is no bitterness in his heart.
Journeyed (). Imperfect middle indicative of , and a vivid reality to Paul still as he was going on towards Damascus.
To bring also ( ). Future active participle of , to express purpose, one of the few N.T. examples of this classic idiom (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1118).
Them which were there ( ). Constructio praegnans. The usual word would be (there), not (thither). Possibly the Christians who had fled to Damascus, and so were there (Robertson, Grammar, p. 548).
In bonds (). Perfect passive participle of , predicate position, “bound.”
For to be punished ( ). First aorist passive subjunctive of , old verb to avenge, to take vengeance on. In the N.T. only here, and 26:11. Pure final clause with . He carried his persecution outside of Palestine just as later he carried the gospel over the Roman empire.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Estate of the elders [] . The eldership or Sanhedrim.
Went. The imperfect : was journeying.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And also the high priest doth bear me witness,” (hos kai ho archiereus marturei moi) “Even as the high priest witnesses,” testifies or bears witness to me, to my former conduct, Act 26:10. The high priest at this time was Ananias, whereas Caiphas had been high priest it the time of Saul’s early life. A witness is one who would be a willing accuser or defender, Act 23:2.
2) “And all the estate of the elders: (kai pan to presbuteroion) “And all the estate (senate),” the official elders of Israel’s organized religion, called the Sanhedrin, Luk 22:66.
3) “From whom also I received letters,” (par’ hon kai epistolas deksamenos) “From whom also when I had received letters,” official authority, warrants, Act 9:1-2; Act 26:10.
4) “Unto the brethren, and went to Damascus,” (eporeuomen pros tous adelphous eis Damaskon) “To the Jewish brethren (of the flesh)into Damascus I journeyed,” Act 9:2-3. But the journey was to receive Christians who had been arrested by the Jews, Act 26:11-12.
5) “To bring them which were there bound,” (akson kai tous ekeise ontas dedemenous) “Leading those whom they had bound there,” and were holding, for the purpose of escorting them under guard or legal detainment,
6) “Unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.” (eis lerousalem hina timorethosin) “Into Jerusalem in order that they might there be punished.” Tho more than twenty years had passed, it is more than likely that half the then members of the Sanhedrin were still alive, there in Jerusalem, if they would come forward and tell the truth about Paul, 1Co 15:9; Eph 3:8; Act 26:10-11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(5) As also the high priest doth bear me witness.Annas is named as high priest at the time of St. Pauls conversion, acting probably with his son-in-law, Caiaphas, as his coadjutor. (See Notes on Luk. 3:2; Joh. 18:13.) At the time which we have now reached, the office was filled by Ananias, son of Nebedseus, who owed his appointment to Herod Agrippa II., then King of Chalcis, to whom Claudius had conceded the privilege of nominating the high priests (Jos. Ant. xx. 5, 2). The official acts of his predecessors would of course be known to the high priest for the time being, and St. Paul can therefore appeal to his knowledge as confirming his own statements.
All the estate of the elders.The word is perhaps used as identical with the Sanhedrin, or Council; perhaps, also, as including the Gerousia, or Senate, of Act. 5:21a body, possibly of the nature of a permanent committee, or an Upper Chamber, which was apparently represented in the Sanhedrin, and yet had separate rights, and might hold separate meetings of its own.
I received letters unto the brethren.The phrase is interesting, as showing that the Jews used this language of each other, and that it passed from them to the Church of Christ. On the general history of St. Pauls conversion, see Notes on Act. 9:1-16. Here it will be sufficient to note points that are more or less distinctive. In Act. 9:2 the letters are said to have been addressed to the synagogues.
For to be punished.We must remember that the punishments would include imprisonment, scourging, and brutal violence (Act. 9:2; Act. 26:10-11); or, as in the case of Stephen, death by stoning.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. The high priest Who may have now been present.
The estate of the elders The presbyterium or eldership; the Sanhedrin. So that the intensity of his original Judaism was beyond all question. Why had all this been changed? The narrative of his conversion now answers.
By the vision of Jehovah repeatedly appearing, (as all admitted,) Abraham had been called (Gen 17:1) and Moses commissioned, (Exo 3:1.) So by the repeated vision of Jehovah-Jesus. Saul had been both called and commissioned. This Jesus, like the Jehovah of old, appears in the splendour of the Shekinah; he is Lord, the Just One, the pronouncer of the I will send thee. For the discrepancies between this and the other two narratives, see our note on Act 9:4-8.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 22:5. The high-priest doth bear me witness, That is, “I can appeal to him for the proof of this.” It will not follow from hence, that he who was nowhigh-priest, also bore that office when St. Paul persecuted the Christians; he might then perhaps be only an inferior member of the sanhedrim. Instead of all the estate of the elders, some read the whole court of the elders; the Greek is , the presbytery, or sanhedrim.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
XVII
SAUL’S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION
Act 9:1-19
In commencing this chapter, I call attention to my address called, “The Greatest Man in History,” which you will find in The Southwestern Theological Review, Vol. I, No. II. There are ten special scriptures which bear upon the conversion of Saul, and most of them upon his call to the apostleship. The accounts given are as follows: (1) By Luke, Act 9:1-9 , A.D. 36; (2) by Barnabas, Act 9:26-28 , A.D. 39; (3) by Paul at Corinth, Gal 1:15-16 , A.D. 57; (4) by Paul at Ephesus, 1Co 15:8-10 , A.D. 57; (5) by Paul at Corinth, Rom 7:7-25 , A.D. 58; (6) by Paul at Jerusalem, Act 22:1-16 , A.D. 59; (7) by Paul at Caesarea, Act 26:1-19 , A.D. 60; (8) by Paul at Rome, Phi 3:4-14 , A.D. 62; (9) by Paul in Macedonia, 1Ti 1:12-16 , A.D. 67; (10) by Paul at Rome, 2Ti 1:9-12 , A.D. 68. In order to understand the conversion of Saul of Tarsus we must be able to interpret these ten scriptures.
To prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion I submit two scriptures: (1) The words that Jesus said to him when he met him, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” (2) What he says about his experience in Rom 7:7-25 , that he was alive without the law until the commandment came, when sin revived and he died.
As to the time and place of Paul’s conversion, the argument is overwhelming that he was converted outside Damascus. In the first place, the humility with which he asked the question, “Who art thou, Lord?” Second, the spirit of obedience which instantly followed: “Whereupon, O King Agrippa, Is was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Again he says, “When God called me by his grace, he revealed Christ in me.” So we may count it a settled question that Paul was converted out there on the road, when the light above the brightness of the midday sun shone about him, and he fell to the ground.
The proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state, is found in 1Co 9:1 , and also 1Co 15:8 , in which he expressly affirms that he had seen Jesus, and puts it in the same class with the appearances of Jesus to the other disciples, after his resurrection from the dead. It was not simply an ecstasy, nor a trance, nor a mere mental state, but he actually met Jesus, and saw him. Jesus appeared to him, not in the flesh, as on earth before his death, but in the glory of his risen body. He and Paul actually met. There was a necessity for his actually seeing the Lord. He could not otherwise have been an apostle, for one of the main functions of the apostolic office was to be an “eyewitness” that Jesus had risen from the dead. So Peter announces when Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas that he must be one who had continued with them from the time of the baptism of John until the Lord was taken up into the heavens, and that he must be one eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ. Other passages also bearing on his apostolic call, are, one particularly, 1Co 9:1-9 , and then what he says in the beginning of his letters: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, not of man.” I need not cite all of these beginnings. You can trace these out yourself. The second particular passage that I cite, to be put by the side of 1Co 9:1-9 , is Gal 1:15-16 .
Let us distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this point experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience, and what the elements of his Christian experience. When I was interested in the subject of my salvation, to me, a sinner and an outsider, the distinction between Saul’s conversion and his call to the apostleship was very clear. You must understand that the light above the brightness of the midday sun was the glory of the appearance of the risen Lord to Saul, in order that he might see him to become an apostle, and the shock which Paul experienced by thus seeing the risen Lord was the shock that knocked him down, but it was not a part of his Christian experience it was a part of his call to the apostleship. You must not expect anything of that kind in order to your conversion, nor must you teach other people to expect it. But the elements of his Christian experience were these: (1) He was convicted that he was a sinner; (2) Christ was revealed to him; (3) he did believe on the Christ thus revealed as his Saviour; (4) he did then and there receive the remission of his sins, which remission was pictorially set forth in his baptism three days later.
Here it is well for us to define a Christian experience. I was once present when a man came to unite with the church, and the first question propounded to him was, “Please tell us in your own way why you think you are a Christian.” “Well,” he commenced in a sort of “sing-song” manner, “one day ah, about five o’clock ah, I just took a notion to walk around the work-fence ah, and I thought maybe I’d better take my rifle along ah, for I might see a squirrel ah,” and he went on just that way. I myself have heard, in a Negro protracted meeting on the Brazos, about eight miles below Waco, candidate after candidate tell their experiences. They commenced this way: “Well, about last Sunday night ah,” following the same “sing-song” manner, “something seemed to drop down on me like a falling star ah, and I heard the angel Gabriel toot his horn ah; I went down in the valley to pray ah,” and so on.
Therefore, I say that we ought to define accurately the Christian experience. This is a Christian experience: All those convictions, emotions, and determinations of the soul wrought by the Spirit of God in one’s passage from death unto life. That may sound like a strange definition of a Christian experience. It has in it a conviction and certain emotions, also certain determinations, or choices, and those convictions and emotions are not excited by seeing a squirrel, not in imagining that you heard Gabriel blow his horn, for it is not Gabriel that is going to blow the horn. Michael is the horn-blower. But this conviction, this emotion and the determinations of the will, are all Spirit-wrought. And a Christian experience covers every one of those in the passage from death unto life.
There are varied uses which the New Testament makes of Paul’s experience:
1. As soon as he was converted, and yet outside Damascus or at least as soon as he had entered Damascus, the Lord tells Paul’s Christian experience to Ananias in order to induce that disciple to go to him. That disciple says, “Lord, I know this man. Why, he is a holy terror! He just kills us wherever he finds us.” But the Lord says, “I tell you he is a chosen vessel unto me, and you go to him.” So the Lord made use of Paul’s experience to prepare Ananias to accept Paul, and to minister to him what ought to be ministered to him, just as God made use of the experience of Cornelius related by himself to Peter in order to prepare Peter to perceive that God was no respecter of persons.
2. The second use made is by Barnabas in Act 9:26-28 . Paul came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and essayed to join himself to the disciples, but they would not receive him: “You? Take you? Accept you? Why, this whole city is full of the memories of your persecutions.” But Barnabas took up for him, and related how this Saul had met Jesus, and how he was a believer in this gospel, and a preacher. And the relating of Saul’s experience to the Jerusalem church removed all of their objections to him, and prepared them to receive him among them, so the record says, “he went in and out among them.”
It is for such objects that the Christian experience should be related to the church. God requires it as the second ceremonial act that the man shall publicly confess the change that has taken place in him before he can be received into the church, and I will be sorry whenever, if ever, the Baptists leave that out. A man must not only be converted inside, but in order to join the church there must be a confession of that conversion.
In this particular case it was exceedingly appropriate for Barnabas to relate it, as they would not be disposed to believe Paul. The general rule should be that each candidate tell his own experience. It is better to let the candidate just get up and tell the church why he thinks he is a Christian, in his own way. Some people object to it. They say it is too embarrassing to the women. I have never found it so, but Is have seen men so “shaky” when they went to get married that they answered so low I could hardly hear them. But women are always assertive. A woman knows she loves him. She knows what she is doing, and she doesn’t mind saying so.
I remember a Christian experience related to our old First Church at Waco. A Mrs. Warren gave it. I talked with her privately, saying, “When you come before the church, don’t let anybody suggest to you what you are to say, and don’t you say anything because somebody else has said it; you just simply say what has happened to you.” When I put the question to her, she opened her Bible and put her finger on the passage from which she heard a sermon, and showed how that sermon took hold of her; told how it led her to pray; she then turned to another passage, showing that through faith she believed in Jesus Christ; and she thus turned from passage to passage. I considered her’s the most intelligent and the most impressive Christian experience I had ever heard. That kind of testimony does a world of good.
3. The third use of it Paul himself makes in his letter to the Galatians. He says, “God, who separated me even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.” Thus he goes on to make use of his Christian experience. He says, “Therefore, now first I was converted, and then called as an independent apostle. That is why I do not go to Jerusalem to submit my experience to Peter or John, having derived this direct authority from God, from Christ, who alone can call an apostle. That is why I did not submit to the instruction of man.”
4. The next use he makes of it is what is told in Rom 7 , and he there tells his experience in order to show the use of the law in the conversion of a man that the law does not convert the man; that it discovers sin to him: “I had not known sin except the law said, Thou shall and shalt not do this or that. I was not even conscious that I was a sinner until the law showed me I was a sinner. Apart from the law I felt all right, about as good as anybody, but when the law came, sin revived and I died.” And then he goes on to show that this mere sight of sin through the law cannot put one at peace with God, neither can it deliver one; it does not enable one to follow the right that he sees in order to evade the wrong that he would not; that it leads one to cry out, “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?” But when he says, “I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord,” he then shows how his conversion, through faith in Jesus Christ was led up to by the law: the law was a schoolmaster to lead him to Christ.
5. In the letter to the Corinthians he makes another use of it. He explains that he is so different from what he was, saying, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” In other words, “You need not come to me and say, ‘Why, Paul, when did you commence to do better, to work out your own righteousness? You are so different from what you were when I first heard of you; you then were breathing out threatenings,’ for I say to you, By the grace of God I am what I am.”
6. We see another when he stands on the stairway in Jerusalem, giving an explanation as to why he quit one crowd and then went to another crowd. They were howling against him for going over to the Christians after being so zealous as a Jew, and he asked the brethren to hear him. He admits all that they said as to what he had been, and to justify his occupying the position he now occupies, he says, “I will tell you my Christian experience,” and he proceeds to do it. If a leader of wild young men, up to all sorts of mischief and devilment, should go off for a few days, and come back changed, and the boys say, “Come down to the saloon tonight, and let us have a good time,” and he would then say, “No,” they would wonder what had come to him and would ask, “What has come over you lately? Come and let us have a game of cards.” But, “No,” he says, “boys, I will tell you why I cannot do that.” Then he explains why, and he leaves that crowd because he can’t stay with it any more. So Paul explained why he left the persecuting crowd, and could not go with them any more. He had had a Christian experience.
7. In Act 26 there is another instance recorded in which he made use of it. He was at Caesarea, arraigned on trial for his life, before Festus and King Agrippa. He is asked to speak in his own defense. In defending himself against the accusations of his enemies he relates his Christian experience.
8. In the letter to the Philippians he relates his Christian experience in order to show the impossibility of any man’s becoming righteous through his own righteousness, and to show that Christ laid hold of him. He uses his own experience now to show that his righteousness can never save him, and that though regenerate, he cannot claim to be perfectly holy and sinless.
9. In 1Ti 1:12-16 he relates his Christian experience in order to explain two poles of those who are salvable: (a) “God forgave me because I did it through ignorance,” and (b) to show that any man who has not committed the unpardonable sin, may be saved, since he, the chief of sinners, was saved.
10. Then, in the last letter to Timothy, and just before he died, he recites his Christian experience. He says, “I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day,” i.e., “I committed my soul to him on that day when he came to me and met me; I knew him before I committed it to him, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep it.” He made that use of his Christian experience because he was under the sentence of death, expecting in a few hours to be executed. This is his farewell to earth and to time, so he closes his letter with the statement that the time of his exodus is at hand; that he is ready to be poured out as a libation; that he has fought a good fight, has kept the faith, and that he feels sure that there is laid up for him a crown which God the righteous Judge will give to him at his appearing, i.e., the appearing of Jesus. The relating of that experience came from the lips of a dying man, showing that the ground of his assurance gives calmness the calmness of God’s peace.
A startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience. We do not find many uses of Peter’s experience, or John’s, or Matthew’s, or Mark’s, or Luke’s. Paul is the only man in the New Testament whose experience is held up before us in ten distinct passages of scripture. To account for the fact, let us expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ), in which he says, “Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief [of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample, . . .” the conclusion of which is this: All these uses are made of Paul’s experience because as Abraham had the model faith, which is the pattern for all generations, so Paul is a model in Christian experience he is the pattern. If you preach on the faith of Abraham you have the model faith of the world; if you preach on the experience of Saul of Tarsus you have the model experience of the world.
The principal lesson to us is that as it was in the particular case of Paul, so it is in our case, that the most stupendous fact in our history is not when we were born according to the flesh, but when we were born according to the Spirit. That is our real birthday. It is the most significant and the most far-reaching fact of anybody’s lifetime and an abundant use may be made of it.
For instance, John Jasper, the Negro preacher, with his Christian experience could always reply to any atheist even to President Eliot, of Harvard, about a new religion. He would say to President Eliot, “When you say there is no such thing as the religion that has been preached, you ought to say, ‘Not as you knows of.’ I have it, and since I have got it and you haven’t, I am higher authority on that than you.”
In Edward Eggleston’s Circuit Rider is the story of a fighting preacher, who was going to his appointment, and certain rough men stopped him on the way and told him that he must turn round and go home, and not fill that appointment. “No,” he said, “I am going to fill it; I’m not going home.” “Well, then, we will take you down from your horse and give you such a beating that you will not feel like preaching.” “Well, you ought not to do that,” he said. “You get down,” they said. He got down and whipped both of them outrageously, but in the fight he got his jaw badly bruised and marred, and when he got to where he was to preach he could not preach. There was a big crowd, and no preacher who could preach. So he looked around and took a poor, thin, long-haired, black-eyed young fellow who had been very wild, but who had just been converted just a boy. The preacher said, “Ralph, get up here and preach.” “Why,” he says, “I am no preacher; I have not been a Christian long; I have not been licensed, nor ordained.” “But,” said the preacher, “get up here and preach.” “Why,” said the boy, “I do not know any sermons.” “Well, if you try to make a sermon and fail, then throw your sermon down, and tell your Christian experience before this crowd.” So that boy got up and made a failure of trying to preach a sermon like preachers preach. Then, weeping, he said, “Brethren, I can tell you how God for Christ’s sake forgave my sins,” and he became more eloquent in telling his experience than Demosthenes or Cicero, and that whole crowd was weeping under the power of the boy’s simple recounting of the salvation of his soul. He could not possibly have done any better than just what he did that day.
There is a myth that when Jupiter made a man he put a pair of saddlebags on his shoulders. In one of the saddlebags was the man’s own sins and in the other were the sins of his neighbors, and when the man threw the saddlebags on his shoulder the sins of his neighbors were in front of him and the other saddlebag with his own sins was behind him so that he could not see them, but his eyes were always on the sins of his neighbors. But when conversion comes God reverses the saddlebags, and putting the man’s own sins in front, he places the sins of his neighbors behind him, so that he never thinks about what a sinner A, B or C is, but, “Oh,” he says, “what a sinner I am!” That is the way of it in the Christian experience. Some think that it was the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., that it was because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people. My belief is that all of us feel that way the first time we quit looking at our neighbors’ sins and begin looking at our own sins, but it is not the explanation of Paul’s statement, because that does not make a pattern of the case. He says, “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief: howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life.” Note that his case was a pattern to them that should thereafter believe. That was the reason, and not simply that of looking at his own sins instead of his neighbors.
What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, is e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious? No. I have showed in a previous chapter that Louis XIV and Alva in the lowlands persecuted worse than all. Others have gone before him in blaspheming, and there have been more injurious men than he. The answer is this: He was a “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” that is, he was an extremist, going to the fine points of Pharisaism, the acme, the pinnacle, the apex of Pharisaism, which is self-righteousness, and Paul was the most self-righteous man in the world. What is the sin of self-righteousness? It says, “I am not depraved by nature; I do not need the new birth, the re-birth of the Holy Spirit; I need no atonement; I am the ‘pink of perfection.’ ” That is the greatest sin that man ever committed, because it rejects the Father’s love. It rejects the Saviour’s expiatory death, and his priesthood. It rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Hence it is the culmination of sin. While other people are self-righteous, Paul was the outside man, which means that if all the sinners from Adam to the end of the world were put in a row and graded according to their heinousness, this one a sinner) this one more a sinner, that one even more, and to the outside man, the worst, the one next to hell, that man was Saul of Tarsus. That is what is meant by being the outside man as a pattern. He topped them all, to be held up before other sinners, so as to say, “If the outside man was saved, you need not despair.” The value of this man’s conversion to the church and to the world is very great. It marked the turning point in the direction of the labors of the church in a worldwide way, and it established forever the foundations of the new covenant as against the old covenant.
His apostolic call and independent gospel knocks the foundation out from under the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope, because it shows that he did not derive from Peter his apostolic authority; that he did not even go to see Peter before he commenced exercising his call; that he did not get from Peter one syllable of his gospel; and whenever an issue came up between him and Peter the latter went down and not Paul. That one fact destroys the entire claim of the papacy that Peter was the first Pope.
There are some things in this connection that need explanation. First, the falling of the scales from his eyes. Literally, there was no falling of the scales from his eyes, but the glory of Christ blinded him. His physical eyes could not see. It was not his soul that was blinded, but his physical eyes; and “the scales” that fell from his eyes was this temporary suspension of sight caused by this glory of the Lord. If you hold your eye open a little and let me put a red hot iron, not against your eye, but close to it, it will make you as blind as a bat, but if you shut your eye it won’t do it, because the tears in your eyes will break the conduction of the heat. Paul’s case is just as when you are standing out of doors on a dark night and there comes an intense flash of lightning. When it is gone you cannot see for a moment. That is the scales.
Second, Paul was unable to eat and drink for three days. The experience that had come to him was turning the world upside down. He had meat to eat that the ordinary man knows not of. The disciples were astonished that Jesus, sitting at the well of Sychar, was not hungry. He says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” Hundreds of times I have been in that condition, after a great illumination in God’s work, and some powerful demonstration in a meeting, that I could not eat anything. The things of heaven tasted so much better than the things of earth. No man eats for a while in the shock of such tremendous experience as that Paul passed through.
Third, the Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” The question arises, What was he praying for? What do you pray for? You are converted. The Lord said to Ananias, “Paul prayeth.” It was used as a proof that he was converted, and, “therefore Ananias, you may go to him.” Ananias was afraid to go. So the Lord said, “Why, you need not be afraid to go; he is not persecuting now, he is praying; there has a change come over him.” I do more praying and quicker praying after an extraordinary visitation of God’s grace than at any other time.
QUESTIONS 1. What address commended for study in connection with this chapter, and have you read it?
2. What the scriptures bearing on the theme, and what the corresponding date of each?
3 Prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion?
4. Through whose ministry was Paul convicted?
5. At what point in the story was he converted when he met Jesus outside Damascus, at the end of three days in Damascus, or at his baptism?
6. What the proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state?
7. What was the necessity for his actually seeing the Lord?
8. Cite other passages also bearing on his apostolic call.
9. Distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this joint experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience.
10. Define a Christian experience.
11. What varied uses does the New Testament make of Paul’s experience?
12. What startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience?
13. To account for the fact expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ) in which be says, “Howbeit Is obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample, etc.”
14. What the lessons to us of the use to be made of our experience, and what illustration of it?
15. Cite the myth of Jupiter concerning the man and the saddlebags.
16. Was it the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people? Explain fully.
17. What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious?
18. What is the value of this man’s conversion to the church and the world?
19. What is the bearing of his apostolic call and his independent gospel on the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope?
20. Explain the falling of the scales from his eyes.
21. Explain his not eating and drinking for three days.
22. The Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” What was he waiting for?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
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.
Ver. 5. See Trapp on “ Act 9:2 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. . ] ‘ The High Priest of that day, who is still living :’ i.e. Theophilus, see on ch. Act 9:1 . Similarly, the whole Sanhedrim = ‘ those who were then members, and now survive .’
] from whom, moreover.
.] to the Jewish ( their ) brethren (see ch. Act 28:21 ). Bornemann’s rendering, ‘ against the (Christian) brethren ,’ is altogether inadmissible. If ever Paul spoke to the Jews as a Jew , it was on this occasion.
. ] even those who were there.
] if resolved, would be , a similar construction to , Mar 2:1 , ‘ those who had settled at Damascus and were then there .’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 22:5 . .: not the high priest at the time he was speaking, for that was Ananias, Act 23:2 , but rather to the high priest Caiaphas who gave him his commission to Damascus, and who may have been still alive, hence , present. .: the word was used by the Jews of each other, Exo 2:14 , Deu 15:3 , and St. Paul uses it here to show that he regarded the Jews as still his brethren, cf. Rom 9:3 . , cf. Act 21:3 , the adverb may imply those who had come thither only, so that refugees, not residents in Damascus, are meant, but the word may simply = , see on Act 21:3 , and Winer-Moulton, liv. 7. In Hipp., Vict. San. , ii., 2, p. 35, we have . : only here and in Act 26:11 in N.T.: used as here in classical Greek, but in this sense more frequent in middle.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
also, &c. = the high priest also.
bear . . . witness. Greek. martureo. See p. 1511. Same as Act 15:8.
all the estate, &c. = the whole presbytery. Greek. presbuterion. Only here, Luk 22:66. 1Ti 4:14.
brethren. This means the Jewish rulers in Damascus.
went = was going.
to = unto. Greek. eis. App-104.
there. Greek. ekeise. Only here and Act 21:3. Add “also”.
for to be punished = in order that (Greek. hina) they might be punished. Greek. timoreo. Only here and Act 26:11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5. .] The High Priest of that day, who is still living: i.e. Theophilus, see on ch. Act 9:1. Similarly, the whole Sanhedrim = those who were then members, and now survive.
] from whom, moreover.
.] to the Jewish (their) brethren (see ch. Act 28:21). Bornemanns rendering, against the (Christian) brethren, is altogether inadmissible. If ever Paul spoke to the Jews as a Jew, it was on this occasion.
.] even those who were there.
] if resolved, would be ,-a similar construction to , Mar 2:1, those who had settled at Damascus and were then there.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 22:5. , beareth me witness) It was evident that he could bear Paul witness: Paul does not doubt that he is willing to do so; hence he speaks in a kind tone. Afterwards in ch. Act 26:5, he speaks in a more severe tone.-, brethren) Jews: ch. Act 2:29.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
also: Act 9:1, Act 9:2, Act 9:14, Act 26:10, Act 26:12
and all: Act 4:5, Act 5:21, Luk 22:66
the brethren: Act 22:1, Rom 9:3, Rom 9:4
Reciprocal: Luk 11:49 – and some Act 22:30 – commanded Act 23:1 – earnestly Act 26:5 – if 1Co 15:9 – because Gal 1:13 – how
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 22:5. Paul referred to the facts mentioned in this verse to show that his former opposition to the way was done under the recognized authorities of the Jews, and that he was not merely a fanatic acting for the purpose of acquiring personal notoriety.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 22:5. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders. The high priest in question was not the person holding that office at the present juncture, but the one who happened, at the time of the Damascus Mission, A.D. 37, to be in possession of that high office. The high priest who with the Sanhedrim gave Paul his credentials as inquisitor for Damascus and Syria, was probably Jonathan the successor and brother of Caiaphas. The reigning high priest at this period, A.D. 58, was Ananias. We have before noticed that in these last days of the Jewish power, the high-priestly office and dignity were not permanent, but were constantly transferred from one holder to another, the Roman authority claiming and exercising this right of raising and deposing the Jewish high priest. Claudius Csar, the emperor, had conceded the privilege of naming the high priest to Agrippa II. This prince had nominated Ananias. The deposed high priest of A.D. 37 was however doubtless one of the members of the Sanhedrim council.
The estate of the elders more likely is a term used for the Sanhedrim. There were many, probably, in that venerable body who remembered well the young Pharisee, the zealot Saul, and the brilliant promise he gave in old days of becoming one of the foremost men in the Pharisee party.
From whom also I received letters unto the brethren. That is, to the chiefs of the Syrian synagogues resident in Damascus and elsewhere. He uses the term brethren to show how, now as then, he regarded his fellow-countrymen the Jews as his brethren, and how he looked on their interests as his. It is also noticeable that the term brethren was used by the Jews first, and that, like so much else that belonged to the synagogue and its life, the expression passed to the Christians, and became among the members of the Church of Jesus of Nazareth, indeed, a household word. Paul was armed on that occasion with letters from the Sanhedrim, from whose commands and decisions in ecclesiastical .affairs there was no appeal.
For to be punished. By imprisonment, scourging, and, as in the case of Stephen, by a cruel death.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 3