v. 4. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

v. 5. which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

v. 6. and now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers,

v. 7. unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. for which hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

v. 8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?

Early in life, at the beginning of the period of his youth, Paul had come to Jerusalem. And his manner of living, the habits of his life, how he comported himself in every way: all this, since it had taken place from the very beginning of his formal education, from his early youth, in the midst of his nation and in Jerusalem itself, all the Jews knew and were familiar with, for they knew him before and from the beginning. If they would but choose to testify, they might say the truth, that in accordance with the most severe sect, the strictest body of men in their own midst (Paul here includes himself and Agrippa with the Jews), he lived the principles. followed the religious cult, as a Pharisee. The point which the apostle here makes is that he was most unlikely to violate the Jewish feeling, for their customs were inbred and ingrained in him. and according to the strictest interpretation at that. And now, with his whole life before the people like an open book and with his thorough Jewish training as an argument for his orthodoxy. he stood condemned on account of his hope in the promise made by God to the fathers. For that he was on trial in the Roman court, for that he was condemned by the Jews. And yet the twelve tribes of Israel together hoped to gain, to attain to, this same promise by a service in all intentness both by night and by day; regarding which hope he was being accused by Jews. as he emphatically declares to the king. That was to Paul the strangest feature of the whole affair, that Jews could be so blind as to deny their own teaching and belief in the attempt to do him harm. It causes him to cry out: Why is it considered incredible by you that God should raise the dead? Why should they oppose it with all the force of unbelief if God raises the dead? This puzzled question might well be repeated in our days concerning this greatest truth of revealed religion, the fact upon which the Christian religion is based. The opposition of the unbelievers results in their losing the most glorious assurance that may come to man, and we cannot see their reason for such obstinacy.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 26:4. Which was at the first, &c. Doddridge reads this, Which from the beginning (of my youth) was spent among those of mine own nation, &c. Probably he had in his childhood been brought up in the school of Tarsus, and there formed an acquaintance with Greek and Roman authors, till he entered on a kind of academical course under the celebrated Gamaliel, about the fifteenth or sixteenth year of his age, when he came to Jerusalem, and was there educated from the beginning of his youth.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 26:4-5 . ] introduces, in connection with the preceding exordium, the commencement now of the defence itself. See Bumlein, Partik . p. 181.

] manner of life . Ecclus. Praef . 1, Symm. Psa 38:6 . Not preserved in Greek writers.

.] a significant epexegesis of , for the establishment of the following . . .

] my manner of life know all Jews, since they knew me from the outset (since the first time of my becoming known) namely, that I, according to the strictest (Act 22:3 ) sect of our religion ( ), have lived as Pharisee . This , calling that . by its name , stands with great emphasis at the close. Notice generally the intentional definiteness with which Paul here describes all the circumstances of the case, to which belongs also the emphatic repetition of (see Bornemann in loc .).

In ., , before , contains the same conception, which is afterwards still more definitely denoted by . They knew Paul earlier than merely since the present encounter, and that indeed , from the beginning (Luk 1:3 ), which therefore, as it refers to the knowing , and not to , may not be explained: from my ancestors (Beza).

] if they do not conceal or deny, but are willing to testify it. “Nolebat autem, quia persentiscebant, in conversione Pauli, etiam respectu vitae ante actae, efficacissimum esse argumentum pro veritate fidei Christianae,” Bengel. Comp. Act 22:19 f.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

Ver. 4. My manner of life from my youth ] And although with some, Principium fervet, medium leper, exitus alget, their best is at first, as Nero (who now reigned at Rome) for his first five years was very hopeful; yet that is not ordinary. A good beginning hath for the most part a good ending, and a young saint proves an old angel.

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

4. ] The takes up : q. d. ‘well, then, to begin my apology.’

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 26:4 . : with no formal antithesis, but as marking the opposition between his present and former mode of life, a contrast dropped for the moment, and resumed again in Act 26:9 ; see Rendall, Appendix on , but also Page, in loco , and notes below on Act 26:9 . : vivendi et agendi ratio , Grimm; cf. the same word used in the description of a life very similar to that of Paul before he became a Christian, Ecclus., Prol. , 12, (Symm., Psa 38 (39):6). , 1Ti 4:12 , only elsewhere in N.T. in Luk 18:21 , and in parallel passage, Mar 10:20 , in LXX Gen 43:33 , Job 31:18 , etc. From its use with reference to Timothy it is evident that the word did not imply the earliest years of life, and although Paul may probably have removed to Jerusalem at an early age, the context does not require a reference to the years he had lived before his removal. .: explanatory of preceding, the commencement of his training, which was not only amongst his own nation, but also specially , at Jerusalem, cf. Act 22:3 . The Apostle presses the point to show that he was most unlikely to act in violation of Jewish feeling he is still a Jew. : only here in N.T., perhaps a conscious classicism, Simcox, Language of the N.T. , p. 33; on the classical forms in this speech see Blass, Proleg. , p. 14, and Gram. , p. 49, and especially p. 5, Philology of the Gospels , p. 9. These literary forms are what we should have expected the Apostle to employ before an audience so distinguished. : Blass gives a further reason for the omission of article, “abest ut 2, 3, 7, 21, sec. usum Atticorum, cf. Act 17:21 ”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 26:4-8

4″So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; 5since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. 6″And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; 7the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. 8″Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?

Act 26:4 “all Jews know my manner of life” Paul has repeated this several times (cf. Act 22:3-5; Act 23:1; Act 24:16; Act 25:8). Paul had lived an exemplary life among the Jews in Jerusalem (cf. Act 26:5).

“my own nation” It is uncertain where Paul grew up. This could refer to (1) Tarsus in Cilicia or (2) Jerusalem.

Act 26:5 “if” This is a third class conditional sentence which means potential action. In this context Paul knows they could testify about his past, but they would not.

“Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion” This was a theological sect of Judaism which emerged during the Maccabean Period. It was committed to the oral and written tradition. See Special Topic at Act 5:34.

Act 26:6 “the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers” This refers to the OT prophecy of (1) the coming of the Messiah or (2) the resurrection of the dead (cf. Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Dan 12:2). Paul saw “the Way” as the fulfillment of the OT (cf. Mat 5:17-19; Galatians 3).

For “hope” see Special Topic at Act 2:25 and the Special Topic: The Kerygma at Act 2:14.

Act 26:7 “our twelve tribes” The tribal lineage (children of Jacob) was still very important to the Jews. Many of the ten northern tribes never came back from Assyrian exile (722 B.C.). We know some tribal information from the NT.

1. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were from the tribe of Judah (cf. Mat 1:2-16; Luk 3:23-33; Rev 5:5)

2. Anna’s tribe is identified as Asher (cf. Luk 2:36)

3. Paul’s tribe is identified as Benjamin (cf. Rom 11:1; Php 3:5)

Herod the Great was jealous of this and had the Temple records, which showed genealogies, burned.

For “twelve” see Special Topic at Act 1:22.

“hope” One wonders exactly which hope Paul is referring to. From the larger context one would assume the resurrection (cf. Act 26:8). See SPECIAL TOPIC: HOPE at Act 2:25.

“as they earnestly serve God night and day” Paul loved his racial group (cf. Rom 9:1-3). He knew how hard they tried to serve YHWH. He also uniquely knew the danger of legalism, dogmatism, and elitism.

“Night and day” was an idiom of intensity and regularity (cf. Act 20:31; Luk 2:37).

Act 26:8 “Why is it considered incredible among you people” Paul is speaking to two groups:

1. Agrippa and other Jews present

2. the Gentiles present, such as Festus

“if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.

“God does raise the dead” This phrase speaks of the Jewish hope of a general resurrection (see Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:8; Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2-3), but Paul had Christ’s resurrection specifically in mind (cf. 1Co 15:1-28). These Sadducean accusers would be getting very nervous at this point (cf. Act 23:1-10).

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

manner of life. Greek. biosis. Only here. Compare App-170.

youth. Greek. neotes. Only here; Mat 19:20. Mar 10:20, Luk 18:21. 1Ti 4:12.

at the first = frorn (Greek. apo. App-104.) the beginning (Greek. arche). Compare note on Joh 8:44.

among. Greek. en. App-104.

nation. Greek. ethnos. Generally applied to Gentiles, but to Israel in Act 10:22; Act 24:2, Act 24:10, Act 24:17, &c.

at = in. Greek. en. App-104.

know. Greek. oida. App-132.

the. Omit.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

4.] The takes up : q. d. well, then, to begin my apology.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 26:4. ) makes an addition to the discussion: , when does not follow, softens the language; Act 26:9. This narrative has in it great , distinctness.-, my manner of life) mode of action in life.- , , which was from my youth, which was from the beginning) that is, from the beginning of my youth. So , from the first, in the foll. verse.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

manner: 2Ti 3:10

which: Act 22:3

Reciprocal: Mar 5:19 – Go home Rom 11:1 – For I also Gal 1:13 – ye Phi 3:5 – Pharisee 2Ti 1:3 – whom

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

4

Act 26:4. Paul was brought up in Jerusalem (chapter 22:3), so that the leaders of his own nation had full opportunity for knowing about his manner of life.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Second Division of ApologiaPaul refers to his well-known early life, and his fame as a PhariseeHe has never swerved from his old BeliefHe touches on its central Tenets, 4-8.

Act 26:4. My manner of life from my youth, which was at first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews. He proceeds now to state how long the Jews had known himfrom his early youth; when they had learned to know himat Jerusalem; and also what they knew of himthat he was a Pharisee, living the strictest of lives. He appeals, thus, to all the Jews. This general term included specially the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem and Juda, and the members of the Sanhedrimthese, in fact were his accusers on the present occasion; but the position which Saul the Pharisee once occupied as the well-known inquisitor of the Sanhedrim, was no doubt well known to all the nation, even to those Jews dwelling in distant countries. In Act 22:3, we read how he had been brought up in Jerusalem. Thus it would seem that Saul, when still a youth, went from Tarsus to complete his education in the Holy City, in the school of the famous Rabbi Gamaliel.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here the apostle begins his defence, with a relation of the innocency and strictness of his life before his conversion: he did and could appeal to all that knew him, concerning the unblamableness of his conversion.

Thence note, That an innocent and blameless life from our youth upwards, is a singular support and encouragement to us in a suffering hour, especially when we are called forth to suffer for religion and righteousness’ sake.

Observe farther, The instance which the apostle gives of his strictness in religion: After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. Of all the sects among the Jews, there was none that took up such an extraordinary strict way of religion as the Pharisees; of this sect was St. Paul, before converted to Christianity, and in this he rested for salvation.

Thence learn, 1. That an extraordinary strict way taken up in religion, is thought by many a sure and sufficient foundation for their eternal salvation.

Learn, 2. That many may rest upon a strict way of religion, which yet cometh not up to, but is oft-times besides, the appointment of the word of God.

The Pharisees, for their unusual and supererogating way of exactness, concluded that they should certainly go to heaven, if any did; when, alas! many things which they practised with extraordinary zeal and strictness, were never required by God at their hands.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Act 26:4-7. My manner of life from my youth, which was at first , which from the beginning, that is, from the beginning of my youth; was among mine own nation at Jerusalem He was not born among the Jews at Jerusalem, but he was bred among them. And though he had of late years been conversant with the Gentiles, which had given great offence to the Jews, yet, at his setting out in the world, he was intimately acquainted with the Jewish nation, and entirely in their interests. His education was neither foreign nor obscure; it was among his own people at Jerusalem, where religion and learning flourished; as was well known to all the Jews there, for he had made himself remarkable betimes. Who knew me from the beginning Of my education, under that celebrated master, Gamaliel; if they would testify But they would not, for they well knew what weight his former life must add to his present testimony; that after the most straitest That is, the strictest, sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee Observing all the rules enjoined among them, respecting every thing that relates not only to the written law of God, but likewise the traditions of the fathers. And now I stand and am judged Not for any crime that I have committed; but for the hope of the promise made unto our fathers The promise of a resurrection to eternal life and happiness, by means of the Messiah, that is, of the resurrection of Christ; and of all the dead, in consequence of his resurrection. So the case was in reality; for unless Christ had risen, there could have been no resurrection of the dead. And it was chiefly for bearing witness to the resurrection of Christ, that the Jews still persecuted him. Unto which promise our twelve tribes So he speaks: for a great part of the ten tribes, which had been carried captive into Assyria by Shalmaneser, (see 2 Kings 17.,) had, at various times, returned from the East (as well as the remains of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, from Babylon) to their own country; Jas 1:1; 1Pe 1:1. Instantly serving Or worshipping God, day and night That is, continually, or in the stated and constant performance of their morning and evening devotions, whether in the temple or in other places, in which they present their prayers; hope to come To attain that resurrection and eternal life; that is, this is what they aim at in all their public and private worship: and by the expectation they have of it, they are animated in all their labours and sufferings for religion. For which hopes sake Reasonable and glorious as it is; I am accused of the Jews The doctrine which I preach containing the fullest assurance and demonstration of a resurrection that ever was given to the world. And it is this that provokes those of mine enemies, who disbelieve it, to prosecute me with so much malice.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

4-8. After the exordium, he proceeds to state, first, his original position among the Jews, and to show that he was still true to the chief doctrine which he then taught. (4) “My manner of life from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews know, (5) who knew me from the beginning, if they were willing to testify, that, according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. (6) Even now, it is for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers, that I stand here to be judged; (7) to which promise our twelve tribes, by earnest worshiping night and day, hope to attain. Concerning this hope, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. (8) What! Is it judged a thing incredible among you, that God should raise the dead?” The Pharisees were the least likely of all the Jewish sects to be unfaithful to Jewish institutions. It was, therefore, much in Paul’s favor that he was able to call even his enemies to witness that from his youth he had lived in the strict discipline of that sect. It was yet more so, to say that he was still a firm believer in the leading doctrine of the party, and to reiterate the assertion made on two former occasions, that it was on account of the hope of a resurrection that he was accused. This was not the avowed cause, but it was the real cause of their accusations; for the assumptions that Christ had risen from the dead was the ground-work of all Jewish opposition and persecution. He interprets the promise made by God to the fathers, by which he doubtless means the promise, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” as referring to the resurrection, because that is the consummation of all the blessings of the gospel. He exposes the inconsistency of his enemies by observing, that it was even Jews who were accusing him of crime in demonstrating this great hope so cherished by the twelve tribes. Then, turning from Agrippa to the whole multitude. he asks, with an air of astonishment, if they really deem it an incredible thing that God should raise the dead. If not, why should he be accused of crime for declaring that it had been done?

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

26:4 {2} My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

(2) Paul divides the history of his life into two times: for the first he calls his adversaries as witnesses: for the latter, the fathers and Prophets.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The essence of the controversy surrounding Paul’s ministry and teaching, he explained, was the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel, namely, salvation through a Messiah. This promise included personal spiritual salvation as well as national deliverance and blessing that the Hebrew prophets had predicted. The agent of this salvation would be a Savior whom God would anoint and who would arise from the dead. Paul’s conclusions concerning that Savior were the basis for the Jews’ antagonism against him.

Paul said that it was because of his Jewish heritage, not in spite of it, that he believed and preached what he did. The Jewish hope finds fulfillment in the Christian gospel. It was, therefore, ironic that the Jews, of all people, should have charged him with disloyalty.

"Paul is arguing that he has been consistent in his loyalty to the Jewish hope, whereas Act 26:7-8 imply that his opponents are strangely inconsistent; what the people earnestly desire, the focus of their hope, is rejected when it arrives." [Note: Tannehill, 2:318.]

When Paul referred to his nation (Act 26:4), he may have had the province of Cilicia or the Jewish community in Tarsus in mind. Personal maintenance of ritual purity and strict tithing marked the lives of Pharisees primarily (Act 26:5). Paul’s mention of the 12 tribes of Israel (Act 26:7) shows that he did not believe that 10 of the tribes became lost, as some cults today claim, for example, Herbert W. Armstrong’s teachings, and British Israelism (cf. Act 2:9; Mat 19:28; Luk 2:36; Luk 22:30; Jas 1:1; Rev 7:4; Rev 21:12).

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