Acts 22 commentary

ACTS 22 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my
defense.”
BAR ES, "Men, brethren, and fathers - This defense was addressed to the Jews,
and Paul commenced it with an expression of sincere respect for them. Stephen began
his defense with the same form of address. See the notes on Act_7:2.
My defence - Against the charges brought against me. Those charges were, that he
had endeavored to prejudice people everywhere against the Jews, the Law, and the
temple, Act_21:28. In order to meet this charge, Paul stated:
(1) That he was a Jew by birth, and had enjoyed all the advantages of a Jewish
education, Act_22:3;
(2) He recounted the circumstances of his conversion, and the reason why he believed
that he was called to preach the gospel, Act_22:4-16;
(3) He proceeded to state the reasons why he went among the Gentiles, and evidently
intended to vindicate his conduct there, Act_22:17-21; but at this point, at the
name Gentiles, his defense was interrupted by the enraged multitude, and he was
not permitted to proceed.
What would have been his defense, therefore, had he been suffered to finish it, it is
impossible to know with certainty. On another occasion, however, he was permitted to
make a similar defense, and perhaps to complete the train of thought which he had
purposed to pursue here. See Acts 22.
CLARKE, "Men, brethren, and fathers - A Hebrew form of expression for
brethren and fathers: for two classes only are addressed. See the note on Act_7:2.
Hear ye my defense - Μου της απολογιας, This apology of mine; in this sense the
word apology was anciently understood: hence the Apologies of the primitive fathers, i.e.
their defenses of the Christian religion. And this is as proper literal meaning; but it is
now used only as implying an excuse for improper conduct. That this is an abuse of the
term requires no proof.
GILL, "Men, brethren, and fathers,.... A common form of address used by the
Jews; see Act_7:2 but that the apostle should introduce his speech to these people in this
manner, after they had treated him so inhumanly, as to drag him out of the temple, and
beat him so unmercifully, is remarkable, and worthy of observation, when they scarcely
deserved the name of "men"; and yet he not only gives them this, but calls them

"brethren", they being his countrymen and kinsmen according to the flesh; and fathers,
there being some among them, who might be men in years, and even members of the
sanhedrim, and elders of the people, that were now got among the crowd: this shows
how ready the apostle was to put up with affronts, and to forgive injuries done him:
hear ye my defence, which I make now unto you; in opposition to the charges
brought against him, of speaking ill of the people of the Jews, the law of Moses, and of
the temple, and in order to clear himself of these imputations, and vindicate his
character and conduct.
HE RY, "Paul had, in the last verse of the foregoing chapter, gained a great point, by
commanding so profound a silence after so loud a clamour. Now here observe,
I. With what an admirable composure and presence of mind he addresses himself to
speak. Never was poor man set upon in a more tumultuous manner, nor with more rage
and fury; and yet, in what he said, 1. There appears o fright, but his mind is sedate and
composed. Thus he makes his own words good, None of these things move me; and
David's (Psa_3:6), I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people that have set
themselves against me round about. 2. There appears no passion. Though the
suggestions against him were all frivolous and unjust, though it would have vexed any
man alive to be charged with profaning the temple just then when he was contriving and
designing to show his respect to it, yet he breaks out into no angry expressions, but is led
as a lamb to the slaughter.
II. What respectful titles he gives even to those who thus abused him, and how humbly
he craves their attention: “Men, brethren, and fathers, Act_22:1. To you, O men, I call;
men, that should hear reason, and be ruled by it; men, from whom one may expect
humanity. You, brethren of the common people; you, fathers of the priests.” Thus he lets
them know that he was one of them, and had not renounced his relation to the Jewish
nation, but still had a kindness and concern for it. Note, Though we must not give
flattering titles to any, yet we ought to give titles of due respect to all; and those we
would do good to we should endeavour not to provoke. Though he was rescued out of
their hands, and was taken under the protection of the chief captain, yet he does not fall
foul upon them, with, Hear now, you rebels; but compliments them with, Men,
brethren, and fathers. And observe, he does not exhibit a charge against them, does not
recriminate, Hear now what I have to say against you, but, Hear now what I have to say
for myself: Hear you my defence; a just and reasonable request, for every man that is
accused has a right to answer for himself, and has not justice done him if his answer be
not patiently and impartially heard.
JAMISO ,"Act_22:1-30. Paul’s defense from the stairs of the fortress - The rage of
the audience bursting forth, the commandant has him brought into the fort to be
examined by scourging, but learning that he is a Roman, he orders his release and
commands the Sanhedrim to try him.
HAWKER, "Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you.
(2) (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the
more silence: and he saith,)
I detain the Reader at the opening of Paul’s address, to remark, with what composure
the Apostle delivered his discourse, with what dignity of manners! and yet more worthy
our notice, that he should speak unto them in the sacred language, in which, from the

first, the Lord hath spoken unto his people. How exceedingly to be desired, would it be,
had our minds a suitable reverence for the original tongue, to approach as near that
standard of purity the Hebrew as possible, in all our solemn seasons. And especially
when we call to mind, how graciously the Lord watched over his Church of old, to keep
his people from the Ashdod language of the heathen. Behold! how the very tongue of
Abraham the Hebrew, and his children, commanded the reverence and attention of
Paul’s enemies, while he spake to them in it, Neh_13:23-25.
CALVI , "Though we may guess by the beginning of this speech what was Paul’s
drift, yet because he was interrupted, we know not certainly what he was about to
say. The sum of that part which is refitted is this, that forasmuch as he was well and
faithfully instructed in the doctrine of the law, he was a godly and religious
worshipper of God in the sight of the world. Secondly, that he was an enemy to the
gospel of Christ, so that he was counted among the priests one of the principal
maintainers and defenders of the law. Thirdly, that he did not change his sect
unadvisedly; but that being tamed and convict by an oracle from heaven, he gave
his name to Christ. Fourthly, that he did not embrace unknown things, but that God
appointed him a faithful teacher, of whom he learned all things perfectly. Lastly,
that when he was returned to Jerusalem, and sought to do good to his countrymen,
God did not permit him. So that he brought not the doctrine of salvation unto
foreign nations without good consideration, or because he hated his own nation, but
being commanded by God so to do. −
1.Men, brethren, and fathers. It is a wonder that he giveth so great honor yet to the
desperate enemies of the gospel, for they had broken all bond of brotherly
fellowship, and by oppressing the glory of God, had spoiled themselves of all titles of
dignity. But because Paul speaketh in this place as some one of the people, he
speaketh so lovingly unto the body itself, and useth towards the heads words
honorable without dissembling. And surely because their casting off was not made
known as yet, though they were unworthy of any honor, yet it was meet that Paul
should reverently acknowledge in them the grace of God’s adoption. Therefore, in
that he calleth them brethren and fathers, he doth not so much regard what they
have deserved, as into what degree of honor God had exalted them. And all his
oration is so framed that he goeth about to satisfy them, freely indeed, and without
flattering, yet humbly and meekly. Therefore, let us learn so to reverence and honor
men that we impair not God’s right. For which cause the pope’s pride is the more
detestable, who, seeing he hath made himself an high priest without the
commandment of God and the consent of the Church, doth not only challenge to
himself all titles of honor, but also such tyranny, that he goeth about to bring Christ
in subjection; as if when God doth exalt men he did resign up his right and
authority to them, and did stoop down to them. −
COFFMA , "IV. THE PERIOD OF PAUL'S IMPRISO ME T

In Paul's address from the steps of Antonio, he spoke to the people until they
clamored for his death. The speech deals primarily with Paul's statement of his
background, education, and zeal as a persecutor of Christ, dwelling especially on the
record of his conversion. For the first time, he revealed the fact that the Lord had
warned him on his first trip to Jerusalem that the Jews there would "not receive of
thee testimony concerning me" (Acts 22:18). Acts 22:19 is especially significant in
that it shows Paul's unwillingness to receive Jesus' word as final; because he seemed
to be very certain that his own background as one of the opposition would enable
him to convert them.
In the above, there appears another parallel in the lives of Peter and Paul. Peter
said, " ot so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean"
(Acts 10:14). In this chapter, Paul said, "Lord, they themselves know, etc." (Acts
22:19). Far from having designed such parallels himself, Luke allows this one to
appear only inadvertently. See under Acts 18:12 for a list of parallels. It should be
remembered that the inspired Luke included himself as among those who sought to
prevent Paul's going to Jerusalem (Acts 21:12-14).
Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defense which I now make unto you. And when
they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more
quiet: and he saith: (Acts 22:1-2)
A. PAUL'S FIRST DEFE SE: FROM THE STEPS OF A TO IO
Brethren and fathers ... His audience was Jewish, and thus the title "brethren" was
current among the Hebrews and could not, therefore, be the "new name" which the
mouth of the Lord would give to the followers of Jesus. See under Acts 11:26.
The Hebrew language ... Paul addressed them in their Aramaic vernacular. As
Bruce said:
Aramaic was not only the vernacular of Palestinian Jews, but was the common
speech of all non-Greek speakers in western Asia, as far east as (and including) the
Parthian empire beyond the Euphrates.[1]
E D OTE:
[1] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
Publishers, 1954), p. 437.
BARCLAY 1-10, "Paul's defence to the mob who are out for his blood is not to
argue but to relate a personal experience; and a personal experience is the most
unanswerable argument on earth. This defence is in essence a paradox. It stresses
two things.
(i) It stresses Paul's identity with the people to whom he is speaking. He was a Jew
and that he never forgot (compare 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:4-5). He was a
man of Tarsus and Tarsus was no mean city. It was one of the great ports of the

Mediterranean, standing at the mouth of the River Cydnus and being the terminus
of a road which came all across Asia Minor from the far-off Euphrates. It was one
of the greatest university cities of the ancient world. He was a rabbi, trained at the
feet of Gamaliel who had been "the glory of the Law," and who had died only about
five years before. He had been a persecutor in his zeal for the ancestral ways. On all
these points Paul was entirely at one with the audience to which he was speaking.
(ii) It stresses the difference between Paul and his audience. The root difference was
that he saw Christ as the Saviour of all men and God as the lover of all men. His
audience saw God as the lover only of the Jews. They sought to hug the privileges of
God to themselves and regarded the man who would spread them abroad as a
blasphemer. The difference was that Paul had met Christ face to face.
In one sense Paul was identified with the men to whom he spoke; in another he was
separated from them. It is like that with the Christian. He lives in the world but God
has separated him and consecrated him to a special task.
CO STABLE, "Paul addressed his audience warmly and respectfully in the same
terms Stephen had used (Acts 7:2). Using the Aramaic language had the desired
effect. The Jews paid even closer attention.
"The real crime of S. Paul was preaching to the Gentiles, and the real heresy his
gospel of equality of privilege. Hence he defends himself by asserting (1) his loyalty
to Israel, and (2) that his preaching was simply obedience to a divine command."
[ ote: Rackham, p. 407.]
Verses 1-21
Paul's speech in his defense 22:1-21
The speeches in Acts so far have been mainly in the form of deliberative rhetoric,
the purpose of which is to make people change their minds and lives in view of the
future. In chapters 22-26, however, the speeches are forensic rhetoric, designed
mainly for defensive and apologetic purposes. [ ote: See ibid., pp. 660-61, for
further discussion.]
Paul needed to defend himself against the charge that he had been disloyal to his
people, the Mosaic Law, and the temple (cf. Acts 21:28). His devout Jewish audience
was especially skeptical of Paul since he was a Hellenistic Jew who fraternized with
Gentiles. This is an excellent example of the Holy Spirit giving the Lord's servant
the words to say on the spur of the moment, as Jesus had promised He would do
(Matthew 10:16-20; Mark 13:9-11). All of Paul's speeches from here on in Acts
concern his defense.
"It [the rest of Acts] is a mixture of travel narratives and defense speeches and it
covers a full quarter of Acts, indicating its importance." [ ote: Bock, Acts, p. 654.]
ISBET, "ST. PAUL’S DEFE CE
‘Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.,

Acts 22:1
We recall the scene on the stairs mentioned in the last chapter. The excited crowd,
the crush, so great that the soldiers had to carry St. Paul, the people following,
shouting ‘Away with him!’ Lysias, the captain, was perplexed—did not know how
to act, because no distinct charge had been brought against the apostle (Acts 22:30).
But on the way to the castle St. Paul spoke to the captain saying who he was. He
asked that he might speak; leave was granted and St. Paul made his defence.
I. St. Paul’s defence.— otice how tenderly he begins his speech (Acts 22:1).
(a) He told them about himself.—By birth and education he was a Jew. Born at
Tarsus, and brought up ‘at the feet of Gamaliel.’ Taught after the manner of the
law, was for a time a persecutor of the Christians, as the priests and elders could
bear him witness, and from whom he received authority to carry on his designs
against the brethren.
(b) The story of his conversion.—He then told them the story of his conversion (Acts
22:6-11), how the great change in him was brought about. [See Second Outline.]
(c) How he became a Christian. Being stricken with blindness, he was unable to do
anything for himself. In his distress, ‘Ananias, a devout man according to the law,
having a good report of all the Jews,’ was sent to his assistance (Acts 22:12-16), by
whom he was baptized and received into the Church. By a Jew, whom the Lord had
sent to him. It was the ‘God of our fathers’ Who had called him to ‘be His witness
unto all men.’
(d) His call to be an apostle. The apostle now comes to the most difficult part of his
subject. Had told them about his conversion and reception into the Church.
Proceeds to tell them how he received the call to apostleship, and his mission to the
Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21). The message came to him in Jerusalem, while worshipping
in the temple, and from the Lord Himself. Up to this point the people listened with
patience. But when he declared that he had been sent on his mission to the Gentiles
by the Lord, the storm broke forth with greater violence (Acts 22:22). Again rose the
cry, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.’
II. Imprisoned. All this was very puzzling to Lysias, the chief captain. He could
judge only of the address by its effects. The sudden outcry and gestures of hatred by
which it was met revived his old suspicions, and he concluded that St. Paul must be
a dangerous offender against the state. He was taken to the castle and scourged, but
his Roman citizenship saved him and he was released.
III. Observe:—
(a) St. Paul, apparently without a friend in the angry mob, which seemed eager for
his death, retains complete self-possession and calmness. It was not the first time he
had faced violent crowds: they had no terrors for him.

(b) His wise and happy choice of words. St. Paul’s aim was to win his countrymen
for Christ. To this end, he was particular about what some persons would consider
minor points. He spoke in the language they liked, and he was respectful in his
manner. The effect was remarkable. The Jews were at once quiet and attentive.
—John Palmer.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Josephus tells us that “the Egyptian” referred to by Lysias was one of the many
impostors of the time, who gave himself out as a prophet, and advanced at the head
of a large army as far as the Mount of Olives, where he was defeated by Felix.
Though he managed to escape with a portion of his followers, efforts were made for
his apprehension, and Lysias seems to have concluded that nothing but the
discovery of this impostor could have caused such an uproar. This, however, would
be a political matter, to be judged according to Roman law, and the chief captain
orders the apostle to be taken into the castle for further examination.’
(2) ‘The course of instruction which a Rabbi had to undergo consisted entirely of the
study of the Scriptures and the comments of masters upon them. The words of the
Scriptures and the sayings of the wise were committed to memory and discussed. St.
Paul “learned at the feet of Gamaliel” much which was of great moment in his
subsequent career. In the synagogues his knowledge of the Scriptures enabled him
to adduce proofs from an authority which his hearers acknowledged to be supreme.
Besides, St. Paul was the great theologian of Christianity and the principal writer of
the ew Testament. The new grew out of the old; the one the prophecy, the other
the fulfilment. But it required a mind not only saturated with Christianity, but with
the Old Testament, to bring this out; and the apostle quotes from all parts—the
Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms—with equal facility.’
PETT, "“Brethren and fathers, hear you the defence which I now make to you.”
Paul opened his speech courteously, revealing in the terms of his address the Jewish
respect for the elderly, and a claimed relationship with his hearers. He and they
were fellow-Jews. The mention of ‘fathers’ suggests that he recognised among the
crowd, to their shame, men old in years and possibly even well known figures in
authority. He requested that they now hear his defence.
PULPIT, "Brethren for men, brethren, A.V. (Acts 7:2, note); the for my, A.V.; now
make for make now, A.V. The defense; ἀπολογία This is the technical word in
classical Greek for a defense in answer to an accusation. Thus e.g. the oration of
Gorgias entitled, υπὲρ παλαµήδους ἀπολογία, begins, ἡ µὲν κατηγορία καὶ ἡ
ἀπολογία κρίσις οὐ περὶ θανάτου γίγνεται. And Demosthenes opposes κατηγρσεῖν to
accuse, to ἀπολογεῖσθαι, to make one's defense. And an ἀπολογία δικαία καὶ ἁπλῆ is
to prove that τὰ κατηγορηµένα, "the things of which the person is accused," were
never done. But it is probably from St. Paul's use of the word here that it became
common to call the defenses of the Christian religion by the term ἀπολογία. Thus we
have the 'Apologies' of Justin Martyr, of Tertullian, of Minutius Felix, among the

ancients; me 'Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae,' by Bishop Jewel, and many others.
PULPIT 1-30, "The apology.
It was a very remarkable promise which our Lord made to his apostles, when,
forewarning them that they should be delivered up to councils, and brought before
kings and rulers for his sake, he added, "But when they so deliver you up, take no
thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever
shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the
Holy Ghost" (Mark 13:9-11). It is impossible not to see a fulfillment of this promise
in St. Paul's apology delivered from the castle stairs at Jerusalem to an infuriated
and bloodthirsty mob. A Jewish riot had something terrific in it, something dreaded
even by the iron-minded Romans. The features all contorted with passion, the large
eyes starting out of their sockets, the savage grinding of the teeth, the fierce cries,
the wild throwing of handfuls of dust into the air, the tossing and waving of their
garments with an unbridled violence, gave a demoniac aspect to such rioters. Paul
had just come out of the thick of such a mob. He had barely escaped with his life,
but not without many blows. He had heard his name given to execration, held up to
detestation as the author of blasphemies and sacrilege, and as the enemy of his race.
And now he was a prisoner in the hands of the heathen masters of his unhappy
country. His hands were loaded with chains, and he knew not what dangers were
before him. And yet, when he had scarce recovered breath after the struggle for life,
we find him with the chains on his wrists, but with unruffled spirit, and admirable
composure and self-possession, delivering to his enemies and would-be murderers a
speech as gentle, as firm, as calm, as collected, and as logical, as if he had composed
and prepared it at leisure in the stillness of his own study, and was addressing it to a
congregation of friends and admirers. Must it not have been given to him in that
hour what to speak, and how to say it? The great force of this defense lay in its
simple statement of facts. The apostle's conduct at each successive stage had flowed
naturally and almost inevitably from the circumstances which surrounded him. He
had nothing to conceal. Indeed, the circumstances of his early life were well known
to his hearers. If his statement was true, how could he have acted differently? He
appealed to his fellow-countrymen, his fathers and brothers of the Jewish people, to
hear with impartiality the apology which he made. Had he stopped here, maybe his
defense would have been accepted. His Hebrew speech, his thoroughly Jewish
attitude, his high-minded earnestness, his splendid courage, seem to have wrought to
some extent upon his volatile and mobile hearers. But he could not stop there. He
had a further message to deliver, and it must be delivered at Jerusalem, the mother
Church, not only of the circumcision, but of the whole Gentile world. That message
was that Christ was to be preached to the Gentiles, and that Jews and Gentiles were
to be henceforth one in Christ. And that message he delivered with chains on his
arms, from the midst of a Roman cohort, to the angry crowd beneath him, having
obviously one single purpose—to speak the truth, and to do his duty both to God
and man. One other remark is called for by this apology. The nature of the case, a
defense under false accusation, made it absolutely necessary that the defendant
should speak of himself. But in the course of the twenty verses in which he details

the several passages in the history of his life which bore upon the accusation, it is
impossible to detect one particle of vainglory or of egotism. There are no boastings,
nor are there any expressions of an affected humility. There is absolute simplicity.
He speaks of himself because he must. And in the same spirit of genuine humility,
when it was not necessary, he did not speak of himself. In the remarkable absence of
details in all those parts of the Acts of the Apostles where St. Luke does not write as
an eyewitness, we have strong evidence that St. Paul did not make his own doings
the subject of his conversation with his familiar friends. Had he done so, St. Luke's
narrative might have been richer and fuller, but St. Paul greatness would have been
diminished, as that of all vain men is, by the desire to appear great. As it is, the
apology enables us to enumerate the great apostle's virtues as combining in an
extraordinary degree, courage, gentleness, calmness, vigor, humility, high-
mindedness, determination, honesty, truth, patriotism, self-forgetfulness, wisdom,
eloquence, and a passionate zeal for the glory of Christ and for the salvation of men.
(For an illustration of some of these features in the apostle's character, see also 2
Corinthians 11:1-33.; 12.; Galatians 2:5, Galatians 2:11; Ephesians 3:7, Ephesians
3:8; 1 Timothy 1:12,1 Timothy 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:16; and throughout the Acts of the
Apostles.)
PULPIT 1-22, "Argument and prejudice.
We have here—
I. A ADMIRABLE ARGUME T. Paul, at the inspiration of the moment, made a
powerful defense of his position. He showed:
1. That no one could enter into their feelings more perfectly than himself. Was he
not a Jew by birth (Acts 22:3)? Had he not received a thoroughly Jewish education,
at the feet of a Jewish master (Acts 22:3)? Had he not been absolutely possessed by a
devotedness to the Law, and a corresponding hatred of the new "Way" (Acts 22:4)?
Had they not the evidence in their own hands of the bitter and unrelenting
persecution of which he had been the eager and active agent (Acts 22:5)? If, then, he
was found advocating this hated "Way," it was not because he did not understand
Jewish sympathies, nor because he had always been one of its votaries; quite the
contrary.
2. That no one could possibly have weightier reasons for changing his mind than he
had. First came a heavenly vision, arresting him in his path of persecution, and
forbidding him to continue (Acts 22:6-11). Then came a powerful confirmation, in a
miracle of healing of which he himself was the subject and of which a most
honorable and estimable Jew was the instrument (Acts 22:12, Acts 22:13); and a
further confirmation in the message with which he was charged (Acts 22:14-16).
Then came a third influence of a powerful character in the shape of another
manifestation, and a command, against which he vainly strove, to go out and work
among the Gentiles (Acts 22:18-21).
II. A SE SELESS A D SUICIDAL EXASPERATIO . (Acts 22:22, Acts 22:23.)

Such was the violent antipathy in the minds of his audience to any fellowship with
the Gentile world that all Paul's arguments went for nothing. This was such an
opportunity as was little likely to recur, of having the facts of the case placed plainly
and forcibly before their minds; it was a day of grace to them. But so utterly
prejudiced were they that one word filled them with a senseless exasperation which
stole from them the golden chance they had of learning the truth, and which riveted
the chains of error and exclusiveness they wore upon their souls.
This defense of the apostle and this exasperation of his audience may suggest to us:
1. The fullness of the Divine argument. God "reasons with" us. He does so
2. The foolish and fatal anger which it sometimes excites. There are those who, when
God speaks to them in nature, providence, or privilege, instead of lending their ear
to his word and bowing their spirit to his will, are only angered and exasperated;
they go still further away from him in increased alienation, in still more determined
rebelliousness of soul. But so doing
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 1-21, "Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence.
Paul’s defence
1. Whether we consider the man, the circumstances, the speech, or the effect
produced, this address is worthy to be ranked among the famous speeches of the
ages. Yet it was not the address of a great political leader, but the defence of a poor,
friendless, manacled prisoner.
2. Most men would have desired nothing so much as to be hurried out of sight of the
crowd. Not so with Paul. Barely delivered from that most terrifying of all forms of
danger, the murderous fury of masses, he addresses the densely thronging
thousands, who were only kept from him by a little belt of Roman swords.
3. What surroundings could have been more unfavourable—a crowded stairway for a
platform, a surging, hostile mob for an audience, a manacled arm to interfere with
freedom of action. But a man was behind that speech; a life of suffering and heroism,
an unwavering conviction of the truth spoken, an unfathomable love for the Saviour
whose cause was defended, was behind that speech. Three elements made it great.
I. Its wisdom and moderation. He must have been terribly excited when he began. He
had been struggling with the mob in a hand-to-hand conflict. He knew its desperate and
despicable character, and that it was on a false and malicious charge that this uproar
against him had been excited. Now we should expect some terrible invective. Curran, or
Grattan, or Wendell Phillips, would have withered those Jews. By nature he was as hot-
tempered as any, and you would expect him to begin, “Liars, hypocrites, whited
sepulchres, hear my defence.” But no; even that hateful mob he addresses in terms of the
highest respect. Then he conciliates them still farther by speaking in their own dialect,
every syllable of which was music to their ears. There is a great deal for us to learn from
this exordium. When you try to convince men, find out what you have in common with
them. Enlist their sympathies by showing the marks of common humanity. And in order
to show this sympathy feel this kinship. Go into the slums of any great city; go to the
farthest heathen shore; go into the fashionable church—with all we have something in

common. We are all men and immortal sinners for whom Christ has died. In comparison
with these bonds of union what are other distinctions?
II. Its simplicity. There is no attempt at rhetoric. The simple story of his conversion is
told without embellishment. After all, is not this simple direct experimental way of
speaking for Christ the best? Did long words and involved sentences and high-sounding
phrases ever convert anyone? When Abraham Lincoln used to plead before the juries of
Illinois farmers, they would say to one another, “Lincoln can’t make a great oration, but
he can somehow show us where the truth lies.” His Gettysburg address has been
pronounced by the highest authority to be one of the three greatest speeches ever
uttered in America, and yet there is not a word or a sentence which a boy cannot
understand. No, eloquence does not consist of noise. The mob made a great deal more
noise than Paul, but Paul made an address which will be read for a thousand years to
come, while their wild, incoherent ravings have long since been lost in the surge of time.
Is there not a thought of encouragement here? We are not equal to the eloquent oration,
but we are equal to the simple recital of experience. In that may lie the most soul
converting power.
III. Its truthfulness. It would have been very easy for him to colour or exaggerate the
truth, and startle the superstitious fancies of his easily-excited audience. But he chose to
appeal to their hearts with the simple truth. Here is a weapon which we all have for the
beating down of error—the recital of a truth which we have experienced, and which has
entered into our lives.
IV. Its courageous utterance. Paul concealed, modified nothing. He told his
straightforward story, and left it to make its own impression. There was one word which
he knew would fill his enemies with fury, that was the word “Gentiles.” Because of his
carrying the gospel to the Gentiles this mad mob had been aroused. Now, should he
declare that it was his mission to carry the gospel to them? By one word he can arouse all
their passions, or, by avoiding it he can pose as an honoured and learned Pharisee. A
warm abolitionist, speaking against human slavery in a Richmond slave market before
the war, was never in a more perilous position than Paul if he declared or intimated any
sympathy with the Gentiles. But we know what course Paul will take, and he took it.
“They gave him audience unto this word, and then” (Act_22:22). Conclusion: This was
an entirely unpremeditated speech of the apostles. He was so pervaded and filled with
the love of Christ, that when taken unawares he could do nothing less than tell the old,
old story. And he could have done nothing more or greater. (J. Clark.)
Paul’s defence
I. Persecuting Christ’s Church.
1. A birthright among God’s chosen people did not keep Paul from early persecution
of those who believed on God’s Son. We may have been born in a Christian land, and
still not be Christians.
2. A most complete education did not restrain Paul from persecuting Christ’s
followers. We may be college educated and still remain bigoted, ignorant, opposers
of the truth.
3. A. consuming zeal only made Paul’s mistaken activity the more disastrous. We
had better never be zealous than to have a zeal only for the wrong.
4. A relentless determination rendered Paul’s evil work of persecuting increasingly

evil. We are so much the worse off for having a strong will, if it be a wrong will.
5. A hatred of the Way led Paul into the way of persecuting. If we do not love the
Saviour, we shall soon find ourselves attacking those who do.
II. Hearing Christ’s voice.
1. The great light shone in the broad glare of noonday. The Divine glory overshadows
any earthly radiance.
2. The Divine voice called the sinner by name. Christ addresses each personally, and
it is a waste of time to plead that the message was intended for someone else.
3. It was Jesus who was persecuted. Our sins are chiefly not against our friends,
ourselves, or our Church; but against our Saviour.
4. The true answer to the Divine warning is, “What shall I do, Lord?” What we have
done, we may repent of—what we shall do tests the sincerity of our repentance.
5. The Lord sent Paul right on to Damascus, whither the apostle had been journeying
before. Christianity doesn’t take a man out of his earthly surroundings; it sends him
on to Damascus, but with a new purpose and new hope.
6. The beginning of the Christian life is in faith. We must trustfully wait until we
reach Damascus for God’s plans regarding our life to be unfolded.
7. The new vision of heavenly things may well blind our eyes to the things of this
world.
8. The reclaimed wanderer, the regenerated persecutor, the regained evil-doer, are
all sure witnesses of what power there is in the Christian life.
III. Called to Christ’s service.
1. We need to make haste and get to our field of Christian labour—especially if, like
Paul, we have spent the early years of our life in opposing Christianity.
2. We have a right to select the home mission field as our place of labour, but if God
indicates that our place is among the foreign missions, it is our duty to go thither.
3. We shall always feel hampered by the record of opposition that preceded our
acceptance of Christ, but we can do thorough work for Christ nevertheless.
4. We are responsible alike for our doing and for our consenting to what others do.
We may become implicated in the murder of Stephen without having cast a stone.
5. We may rightfully pause and deliberate and consider regarding our future course
until God cuts it short with a peremptory “Depart.” Then we must at once arise and
go. (S. Times.)
The legitimacy of self defence
A man must not be always defending himself, or explaining his actions, to others. Life is
too short, and time is too precious for that. But there are occasions when a man owes it
to himself, to his friends, and to the cause of truth, to speak out, and to make clear what
is now a tangle of inconsistencies, or a web of misconceptions. It is a great thing to know
when to explain, and when to let things explain themselves. Paul had wisdom from
above to enable him to do the right thing in this line. Any man with the faith of Paul can

have wisdom on this point from the source of Paul’s wisdom. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
The defence and weapons of a man of God in troublous times
I. For himself—he has right and law which must protect him, as long as they have the
power.
II. Within himself—he carries the equanimity of a good conscience, which remains
undisturbed in the storm of the passions.
III. In himself—he exhibits the power of a Divinely consecrated personality, which does
not fail to impress even brutal crowds.
IV. In God—he has a friend who says, “No weapon that is formed against thee shall
prosper.” (K. Gerok.)
Paul’s memorable sermon at Jerusalem
I. The preacher: in chains.
II. The pulpit: the stairs to the Roman barracks.
III. The deacons who conducted him: the soldiers.
IV. The psalms which preceded the discourse: murderous outcries.
V. The congregation: an excited people.
VI. The anointing which he brings along with him: the Spirit of the Lord, as a Spirit of
faith, love, wisdom, and strength. (K. Gerok.)
Paul and the bigoted Jews
1. Christians may at any time be called upon for “a reason of the hope that is in
them,” and ought to be “ready to give it, with meekness and reverence” (Act_22:1;
1Pe_5:1).
2. We ought to consider in the best light even the acts of enemies (Act_22:3).
3. Prayers are often answered in ways we least expect. Not only are our greatest joys,
but our keenest disappointments, experienced in Divine communion. Paul wished
first to be an apostle to Jews. Even devotions must cease when the demands of duty
are urgent. It is well to carry the zeal and consecration acquired in prayer into life
and action. There are many tasks for which we are unprepared until we have been
fired by devotion (Act_22:17-18).
4. Men are not always the best judges as to how, when, and where they shall do the
most good (Act_22:19-20).
5. The distant purposes and preparations of Christianity prove its Divine character
and power (Act_22:21).
6. Where there is conscious rectitude, a narrative of facts is the best defence.
7. The hardness of the heart is as supernatural as its conversion. (A. F. Muir, M. A.)

Paul’s address on the stairs
In this address he—
1. Avows himself a Jew by birth and education (vers3).
2. Describes his persecuting zeal against the Christians (Act_22:4-6).
3. Narrates his miraculous conversion (Act_22:6-10).
4. Shows how his reception into the new body was by Jewish agency (Act_22:12-16).
5. Gives an account of his apostleship among the Gentiles (Act_22:17-21). In the
address note that—
I. Self is criminated. Not one word is uttered in vindication of his conduct prior to
conversion; on the contrary, he paints it in the darkest colours. What can any man
discover in his history before conversion on which he can look with complacency?
II. Christ is honoured.
1. His conversion is ascribed to Him as it always is.
2. His commission is ascribed to Him; Christ became everything to the apostle after
his conversion.
III. Conversion is memorable. Twenty-five years had passed away, and yet the incidents
were fresh. So it is in all genuine cases of conversion. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Paul’s sketch of his life
or how a servant of God looks back upon his life course.
1. With grateful remembrance of human benefactors (Act_22:3).
2. With penitent confession of his own erroneous ways.
3. With humble praise of the Divine gracious dealings (verse 6-16).
4. With clear consciousness of his life’s call (Act_22:18-21). (K. Gerok.)
The apostle’s autobiography
The apostle’s life, as he here sketches it, may be divided into three parts.
I. Paul persecuting Jesus. For in persecuting the disciples, he really persecuted their
Lord. He persecuted—
1. Intelligently. When this hated sect was broken up in Jerusalem after the
martyrdom of Stephen, he saw in a moment that the scattered fragments must be
annihilated before victory was complete. In this he showed the true genius of a
general. So he deliberately laid his plans to harass the scattered bands of disciples.
2. Relentlessly. All women as well as men who loved Jesus, Paul hated. He gave no
quarter to any. Nothing short of Stephen’s death would satisfy his bloodthirsty soul.
Extermination is the goal which he means to reach.

3. Consecratedly. He gave himself to this work; not his means or his thoughts only,
but himself. He scorned working by proxy. How the ecclesiastics in Jerusalem must
have loved him! How the Christians must have dreaded him, even as the Saracens
dreaded Richard the Lion-hearted.
II. Paul prostrate before Jesus. Yes, in the very dust, on the way to Damascus. Yes,
before the very Jesus, whom with all his soul he had hated. In an instant all his
cherished plans were dissipated, and he cries, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do”?
Humanly speaking, the history of the world was more changed by that incident than by
any of the “decisive battles of the world.” We love to tell of Platea, Thermopylae,
Marathon, Tours, Waterloo, and Gettysburg, but all of these have not exerted so great an
influence as this battle of Jesus with Paul his enemy. It lasted but a moment, and the
Pharisee was conquered once and for all. Note: Certain sceptics explain this occurrence
by Paul’s having been sunstruck, and that he mistook the blinding light of the sun for a
Divine appearance. To which we answer, that if a sunstroke can make such preachers we
had better close our theological seminaries, and set all their students out under a boiling
sun. Such criticism is on a par with that of the German commentator, who says that
when Jesus said to Martha, “But one thing is needful,” He meant, “Don’t cook too much,
we really need only one dish.”
III. Paul praying to Jesus. When a man falls prostrate before Jesus, it will not be long
before he begins to pray (Act_9:11). In this prayer he evidently asked for guidance as to
what he could do for Jesus. A good prayer that for a young convert. Too many merely ask
for pardon, and stop. Paul also asked for orders. (A. F. Schauffler.)
Personal experience
1. We wonder what speech Paul wilt now make. Will he enter into some learned
argument and confound his hearers by his heavenly eloquence? The audience is
unlike any other audience he has ever addressed, and he is now in the metropolis of
the land. What is his defence? He tells over again the story of his conversion, and
nothing more. The sublimity of that act is without parallel. Here is no argument,
criticism, erudition, but a simple statement of facts; the application being: “After
this, what could I do”?
2. We wondered how the old story of the conversion was bearing the wear and tear
of apostolic life; the answer is before us. Having gone down into the city and into the
wilderness, and over the sea; having been beaten, stoned, imprisoned, the apostle
ends just where he began: by telling the simple experience of his own soul. The story
is just the same. Sometimes imagination plays havoc with memory; and throws its
own colour upon the simplest facts of early life, and we begin to regard those facts as
a dream. This is particularly the case with the religious imagination; it leads us to
disown our early selves, to regard our first prayers as passionate and sentimental
rather than as sober and vital. It is interesting, therefore, to find that Paul, after all
the manifold experience of a missionary’s life, repeats the old story exactly as it
occurred in the early part of his life. Paul laced and kept both his feet on the rock of
facts which had occurred in his own knowledge.
3. Christianity is not to be defended by mere argument, by the able use of elegant
terms and subtle phrases; it does not challenge the world to a battle of opinions.
Christianity is an incarnation; it stands up in its own living men, and says, “This is
my work; the controversy which I have with the world is this: produce your men and

I will produce mine.” The tree is known by its fruit. If the Church would stand firmly
to this one point, there need be no controversy. If in an unfortunate mood you refer
to some other man’s case, you may be perplexed by some cross inquiry as to the
order of the facts; but if you keep to your own self there is no answer.
4. The recital Paul called his “defence.” The defence of Christianity is not a book but
a man—not an argument but a life. Of course we shall be told about the shortcomings
of Christians. So be it; and still the truth remains that Christians are the defence of
Christianity. You tell me that London is a healthy city! Come with me to the hospitals
and I will show you every disease known in this climate. Come with me from house
to house, and in nearly everyone I will find you someone sick. That kind of argument
would not be admitted on sanitary questions; yet the very men who would probably
reject it upon the ground of a physical kind, might be tempted to use it in relation to
Christians. There are sick Christians, Christian cripples; and yet it remains true that
even the weakest Christian may have about him the peculiar sign manual of heaven.
5. Here, then, is the plain line along which we must move when called upon for our
defence. “Men, brethren, and fathers,” says some poor old mother in the Church,
“hear ye my defence. I was left in difficulty and trouble and sorrow; I knew not where
to turn: I sat down and felt the pain of utter helplessness, when suddenly I heard a
voice saying unto me, ‘Pray to thy Father in heaven.’ I never had prayed just in the
right way; but, at that moment, my eye brightened with hope, and I fell down, and
asked the Lord to show me what He would have me to do. Suddenly there was a great
light around me, and a hand took hold of mine, and ever since I have felt that I am
not an orphan, but under fatherly superintendence.” Sweet old mother! sit down; the
philosophers can never answer that. Have you no tale to tell about the dark and
friendless days; the sudden suggestion that stirred the mind; the inspiration like a
flash of light at midnight; the key which has unlocked every gate ever since? Stand up
and tell your tale. Let me not hear your opinions and views and speculations—keep
them to yourself; but when we call for your defence read out of the pages of your
heart. Herein is the secret of ardent preaching.
6. A converted man is one who is completely turned right round in every act, motive,
impulse, and purpose; one who was travelling east, but is now marching straight
towards the west. You could tell what turned you round—it was a death, a grief, a
reading of the Book, a sermon, a singular providence, the hearing of a hymn, the
touch of a child, the feeling of an inward agony. That is your defence; it is not mine;
it is not another man’s, probably. Every man has his own view of God, his own
conception of the Cross.
7. We want more personal experience in the Church. Herein the idea of some
Christian communions is sound: that we should meet one another periodically, and
audibly say what God has done for the soul. And, judging by apostolic history and
precedent, nothing is so convincing, so satisfactory, as for the soul to tell its own
story, in its own words, and when the soul does that, the best of all sermons will be
preached. Each can say, who has known Christ’s ministry in the soul, “Once I was
blind; now I see.” (J. Parker, D. D.)
2 When they heard him speak to them in

Aramaic, they became very quiet.
Then Paul said:
CLARKE, "When they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue - He had
probably been traduced by the Jews of Asia as a mere Gentile, distinguished only by his
virulence against the Jewish religion; which virulence proceeded from his malice and
ignorance.
GILL, "And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,....
See Gill on Act_21:40.
they kept the more silence; it being their mother tongue, and which they best
understood; and which the captain and the Roman soldiers might not so well under
stand; and chiefly because the Hellenistic language was not so agreeable to them, nor the
Hellenistic Jews, who spoke the Greek language, and used the Greek version of the Bible;
and such an one they took Paul to be, besides his being a Christian; wherefore when they
heard him speak in the Hebrew tongue, it conciliated their minds more to him, at least
engaged their attention the more to what he was about to say:
and he saith; the Syriac and Ethiopic versions add, "to them", as follows.
HE RY, "III. The language he spoke in, which recommended what he said to the
auditory; He spoke in the Hebrew tongue, that is, the vulgar language of the Jews,
which, at this time, was not the pure Old Testament Hebrew, but the Syriac, a dialect of
the Hebrew, or rather a corruption of it, as the Italian of the Latin. However, 1. It
showed his continued respect to his countrymen, the Jews. Though he had conversed so
much with the Gentiles, yet he still retained the Jews' language, and could talk it with
ease; by this it appears he is a Jew, for his speech betrayeth him. 2. What he said was the
more generally understood, for that was the language every body spoke, and therefore to
speak in that language was indeed to appeal to the people, by which he might have
somewhat to insinuate into their affections; and therefore, when they heard that he
spoke in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence. How can it be thought people
should give any attention to that which is spoken to them in a language they do not
understand? The chief captain was surprised to hear him speak Greek (Act_21:37), the
Jews were surprised to hear him speak Hebrew, and both therefore think the better of
him. But how would they have been surprised if they had enquired, as they ought to have
done, and found in what variety of tongues the Spirit gave him utterance! 1Co_14:18, I
speak with tongues more than you all. But the truth is, many wise and good men are
therefore slighted only because they are not known.
JAMISO ,"when they heard ... the Hebrew tongue — (See on Act_21:40).
they kept the more silence — They could have understood him in Greek, and
doubtless fully expected the renegade to address them in that language, but the sound of

their holy mother tongue awed them into deeper silence.
CALVI , "2.That he spake Hebrew. This is indeed an usual thing, that when men
which speak diverse languages are together, we hear those more willingly who speak
our own language; but the Jews were moved with another peculiar cause, because
they imagined that Paul was offended − (497) with his own kindred, so that he did
even hate their tongue, or that he was some rogue which had not so much as learned
the speech of that nation whereof he said he came. ow, so soon as they heard their
own language, they began to have some better hope. Furthermore, it is uncertain
whether Paul spake in the Hebrew or in the Syrian tongue; for we know that the
speech of the Jews was corrupt and degenerate after their exile, forasmuch as they
had much from the Chaldeans and Syrians. For mine own part, I think, that
because he spake as well to the common sort as unto the elders, he used the common
speech which was at that day usual. −
“ Ex professo infensum,” professedly hostile to.
PETT, "‘And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they
were the more quiet. And he says,’
When they heard that he was speaking in ‘the Hebrew language’ they maintained
their silence. It is debated as to whether ‘The Hebrew language/dialect’ here means
that he spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the ew Testament ‘Hebrew’ regularly
means Aramaic. For example the superscription above Jesus on the cross was said to
be in Greek, Latin and ‘Hebrew’ (Luke 23:38). But we can probably say one thing
with near certainty, in an Aramaic speaking country Pilate would not have failed to
put it in Aramaic. Thus there ‘Hebrew’ means Aramaic. Of course Hebrew lettering
and Aramaic lettering are the same so that only one who knew both Hebrew and
Aramaic very well would be able to tell the difference by reading it, and to outsiders
it was in ‘Hebrew’, that is, the language that the Hebrews use. All Palestinian Jews
tended to speak Aramaic. Hebrew was reserved for religious usage. On the other
hand it could be argued that if he spoke in Hebrew it would gain special respect and
emphasise that he was a true Jew. It would even help to explain why they were ‘the
more quiet’.
The basis of his defence is that all through his life to this point he had acted as a true
Jew, in obedience to the God of the Jews. We must remember that he is not
answering a specific charge, indeed many of the crowd probably did not know what
the specific charge was. What he is doing is seek to win the decent Jews onto his side
by showing that all that he has done has been reasonable from a Jewish viewpoint.
Then they will recognise the folly of all charges against him.
The speech is in the form of a clear chiasmus, as follows:
a Paul’s Jewish credentials are laid down (Acts 22:3).
b His severe persecution of the Way is described (Acts 22:4-5).

c The voice of the Lord speaks to him and he sees His light (Acts 22:6-9).
d He is told to arise and go into Damascus where he will be told what to do (Acts
22:10-11).
e Ananias comes to him and he receives his sight (Acts 22:12-13).
f He is told that he has been appointed to know God’s will, to see the Righteous One,
and to hear the voice from His mouth. He is thus to be the means of the revelation of
the resurrection and enthronement of Christ, compare Galatians 1:16 (Acts 22:14).
e He is to be a witness of what he hasseenand heard (Acts 22:15).
d He is told to arise and be baptised, and to wash away his sins calling on the name
of the Lord (Acts 22:16).
c The voice of the Lord speaks to him in the Temple and tells him he is to leave
Jerusalem because they will not hear him (they will not see His light) (Acts 22:17).
b He describes to God his severe persecution of believers (Acts 22:19-20).
a He is told to depart and go far hence to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21).
In ‘a’ we have the stark contrast of the complete Jew, who in the parallel is sent to
the Gentiles (salvation is of the Jews - John 4:22 - but is to be made available to all
true worshippers - John 4:23-24). In ‘b’ the parallel is clear. In ‘c’ the voice of the
Lord speaks to him and he sees the divine light, and in the parallel the voice of the
Lord speaks to him and tells him that Jerusalem will remain in darkness, it will not
hear him. In ‘d’ he arises so as to enter Damascus and learn what he must do, and in
the parallel he must arise and be baptised, and wash away his sins calling on the
name of the Lord, which is the first thing he must do. In ‘e’ his eyes are opened that
he might see, and in the parallel he must be a witness to what he hasseenand heard.
In ‘f’ comes the central point of the whole, his call and appointment to know God’s
will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear His voice, so that he may be the means of
revealing to the world the resurrection and enthronement of Christ Jesus.
This revelation of the resurrection of the dead now takes central place, for having
described the appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul in what follows the central part
of this section of Acts is built around the proclamation of the hope of the
resurrection. It is found in Acts 23:6; Acts 24:15; Acts 26:6-8 (in the introductory
analysis ‘h’, ‘l’, and ‘h’). It is then followed by a further description of the risen
Jesus to Paul in Acts 26:12-18. So from here to chapter 26 the resurrection from the
dead is continually emphasised.
PULPIT, "Unto them in the Hebrew language for in the Hebrew tongue to them,
A.V.; were the more quiet for kept the more silence, A.V. When they heard, etc. This
trait is wonderfully true to nature, and exhibits also St. Paul's admirable tact and
self-possession. It was strikingly in harmony with his addressing them as
"brethren" that he should speak to them in their own mother tongue. There is a
living reality in such touches which seems at once to refute Renan's suspicion that
St. Luke invented this and other of St. Paul's speeches in the later chapters of the
Acts. The full report of these later speeches is abundantly accounted for by the fact
that through this time St. Luke was with St. Paul, and heard the speeches.

3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but
brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel
and was thoroughly trained in the law of our
ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of
you are today.
BAR ES, "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 - κατᆭ ᅊκρίβειαν 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.
CLARKE, "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, etc. - 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 the notes on Act_9:11; Act_21:39.
Feet of Gamaliel - See a full account of this man in the note on Act_5:34 (note).
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 παρα τους ποδας, at the feet, means the same as πλησιον, near, or before, which is not
an unfrequent mode of speech among both sacred and profane writers. Thus, in Act_
4:35, Act_4:37; Act_5:2, ετιθουν παρα τους ποδας των απο̣ολων, they laid it at the
apostles’ feet, means only, they brought it to the apostles. So in 2 Maccabees 4:7, παρα
ποδας ηδη τον ᆼδην ᆇρωντες κειµενον, 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, ε̣ι
και πλησιον αει τሩ δυναµενω λαµβανειν, ante pedes id temper et prope est, illi qui accipere
potest. Also Lucian, De Conser. Hist. p. 669, ᆞν παρα ποδας οᅷ ελεγχοι. The refutation of
which is at hand. The same kind of form occurs in the Hebrew, Exo_11:8 : All the people
that are at thy feet, ‫ברגליך‬ beragleica, i.e. who are with thee, under thy command, 2Sa_
15:16. And the king went out, and all his household, ‫ברגליו‬ 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, ακριβειαν, the most extinct manner, is evident; and hence, in Act_
26:5, he calls Pharisaism ακριβε̣ατην, 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 honor and glory.
GILL, "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 Gill on Act_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 Act_5:34 it was the custom of scholars among
the Jews, to sit at the feet of their masters, when instructed by them; see Deu_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, ‫בעפר‬
‫,רגליהם‬ "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, Gal_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 Mat_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.
HE RY, "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, anēr
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_30:8. 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_10:2), 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_66:5), 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.
JAMISO ,"a Jew of Tarsus, brought up in this city, at the feet — (See on
Luk_10:39).
of Gamaliel — (See on Act_5:34); 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 was destined.

the perfect manner of the law of the fathers — the strictest form of traditional
Judaism.
zealous — “a zealot.”
toward God as ye all are this day — his own former murderous zeal against the
disciples of the Lord Jesus being merely reflected in their present treatment of himself.
HAWKER 3-21, "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 Ac 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.
CALVI , "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, (
Acts 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 ( Luke
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. otwithstanding 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. otwithstanding, this may be taken in good part, that he did
long ago no less worship God from his heart than they did then. −
“ ulla disciplina imbutum,” not imbued with any discipline.
“ Fiunt degeneres,” become degenerate,
“ Exacta ratio,” an exact method.
COFFMA , "Dummelow gave an excellent outline of Paul's speech which properly
begins with this verse:
Paul was accused of: (1) hostility to the Jews; (2) contempt for Jewish law; and (3)
desecration of the temple. He replied to all three charges thus:
(1) He was a Jew by birth, educated in Jerusalem under the noted Gamaliel, was
zealous for God, and a persecutor of the Christians,
(2) His conversion resulted from a divine revelation which was confirmed by
another divine revelation to Ananias.
(3) That even after he became a Christian he continued to honor the temple, to
worship there, and even saw a vision while worshiping in the temple.
That his preaching to the Gentiles was the result of a divine command, and was due
to the rejection of God's message by the Jews.[2]SIZE>
At the feet of Gamaliel ... The honor in which Gamaliel was held by his
contemporaries is demonstrated by the fact that a certain year "was only
provisionally known as leap-year until he gave his approval."[3] As a pupil of so
distinguished an educator, Paul hoped to find favor with his hearers.
Being zealous for God ... There is a subtle difference in being zealous for "the law"
and being zealous for God; but such a distinction was lost on the temple mob.
Strangely enough, it is revealed here that "a man may be learned, acquainted with

Scripture, and zealous toward God, and yet an enemy and persecutor of Christ."[4]
Paul's efforts to identify himself with his hearers were as skillful and diplomatic as
was humanly possible; furthermore, they were reinforced by Paul's own convictions
that he could succeed. It is important to remember that in spite of God's warning
that Israel would not hear him, Paul evidently believed that he could persuade them.
Such a confidence on his part was understandable, but nevertheless incorrect.
Paul's feeling, despite divine revelation to the contrary, that he could convert that
gang in the temple is pitifully like the opinions of young ministers in every age. They
are so sure of the undeniable truth and righteousness of their message that it is
simply inconceivable to them that any man could resist it. All of us should take note
of how it worked out for Paul. As Wesley said:
It is not easy for a servant of Christ, who is himself deeply impressed with divine
truth, to imagine to what a degree men are capable of hardening their hearts against
it. He is often ready to think with Paul that it is impossible for any to resist such
evidence. But experience makes him wiser, and shows that willful unbelief is proof
against all truth and reason.[5]
[2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible ( ew York: The Macmillan
Company, 1937), p. 848.
[3] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 169.
[4] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House), p. 401.
[5] John Wesley, otes on the ew Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House), in loco.
COKE, "Acts 22:3. Brought up—at 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. Acts 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 Luke 2:46; Luke 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, πεπαιδευµενος, 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.
BE SO , "Acts 22:3-5. I am verily a Jew, &c. — This defence answers all that is

objected, Acts 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 Acts 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 God’s
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 Acts 9:1-2.
CO STABLE, "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. Acts 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. [ ote: 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. [ ote: E.g., Richard . Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, pp. 25-27.] It
is possible that Paul was 13 or 14 years old when he came to Jerusalem. [ ote:
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. Galatians
1:14).
ELLICOTT, “(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 ote on Luke 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 master’s 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 Acts 26:5, we have the corresponding adjective.
Was zealous toward God.—The Apostle (see ote on Acts 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 Apostle’s language. He was a zealot for
God: they were zealots for the Law.
PETT, "“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 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians
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’. o 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. o 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. one 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.
PULPIT, "A Jew for verily a man which am a Jew, A.V. and T.R.; of Cilicia for a
city in Cilicia, A.V.; but for yet, A.V.; instructed for and taught, A.V.; strict for
perfect, A.V.; our for the, A.V.; being for and was, A.V.; for for towards, A.V.; even
as for as, A.V. Born in Tarsus, etc. (see Acts 21:39). St. Paul was evidently proud of
his native city, "the famous capital of a Roman province," watered by the "swift
stream of the Cydnus," and looked down upon by the snowy summits of Mount
Taurus; "a center of busy commercial enterprise and political power;" "a free city,
libera et immunis" (Farrar, 'Life of St. Paul,' vol. 1. Acts 2:1-47.). St. Paul's express
assertion that he was "born at Tarsus" directly refutes the tradition handed down
by St. Jerome that he was horn at Giscala, and carried thence to Tarsus by his
parents when Giscala was taken by the Romans (Farrar, ibid.). Brought up;
ἀνατεθραµµένος, a classical word, only found in the ew Testament in the Acts
(Acts 7:20, Acts 7:21, and here). It is found also in Wis. 7:4. It implies early
education. At the feet of. The scholar sits or stands humbly beneath the raised seat
of the teacher (comp. Luke 10:39). The stop is rightly placed after γαµαλιὴλ. Some,
however, put the stop after ταύτῃ, and connect παρὰ τοὺς πόδας γαµαλιὴλ with
πεπαιδευµένος. Gamaliel (see Acts 4:1-37, Acts 5:3, note). Instructed according to
the strict manner of the Law of our fathers; comp. Galatians 1:14, "I profited in the
Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of my fathers," where for τοῦ πατρῳου νόµου we read τῶν
πατρικῶν µου παραδόσεων,. Under the πατρῴος νόµος Paul probably included the
traditions, as well as the written Law, which the Pharisees so rigidly observed
(comp. Acts 26:5,where the ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιντῆς ἡµετέρας θρησκείας
corresponds with the ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρώου νόµου) The strict manner; κατὰ
ἀκριβείαν, found only here in the ew Testament; but a word of repeated use in this
sense in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, and also, with the adjective ἀκρίβης and the
adverb ἀκριβῶς, much used by medical writers. ἀκριβέστερος and ἀκριβέστατος
are used by St. Luke only (Acts 18:26; Acts 23:1-35. 15, 20; Acts 24:22; Acts 26:5),
and ἀκριβῶς six times to three in the rest of the ew Testament. Zealous for God (
ζηλωτὴς τοῦ θεοῦ); see Acts 21:20, note.
4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their
death, arresting both men and women and
throwing them into prison,

BAR ES, "And I persecuted - Act_8:3.
This way - Those who were of this mode of worshipping God; that is, Christians. See
the notes on Act_9:2.
Unto the death - Intending to put them to death. He did not probably put any to
death himself, but he committed them to prison; he sought their lives; he was the agent
employed in arresting them; and when they were put to death, he tells us that he gave his
voice against them Act_26:10; that is, he joined in, and approved of their condemnation.
Delivering into prisons ... - Act_8:3.
CLARKE, "I persecuted this way - Ταυτην την ᆇδον; This doctrine, the way of
worshipping God, and arriving at a state of blessedness. See on Act_9:2 (note).
Binding and delivering into prisons - See on Act_8:3 (note); Act_9:2 (note).
GILL, "And I persecuted this way unto the death,.... That is, the Christian
religion, and the professors of it; whom the apostle breathed out threatenings and
slaughter against, haled out of their houses, and committed to prison; consented to their
death, as he did to Stephen's; and whenever it was put to the vote, whether they should
die or not, he gave his voice against them; so that he was a most bitter enemy, and an
implacable persecutor of them; which shows how very averse he was to this way, and
how great his prejudices were against it; wherefore it must be a work of divine power,
and there must be the singular hand of God in it, to reconcile him to it, and cause him to
embrace and profess it:
binding and delivering into prisons, both men and women: see Act_8:3.
HE RY, "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, Act_9:1. When they were put to death, he gave
his voice against them, Act_26:10. 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.
JAMISO ,"I persecuted, etc. — (See on Act_9:1, Act_9:2; see on Act_9:5-7).
CALVI , "4.I persecuted this way. This is the second point, that he was an enemy
to Christ’s doctrine, and that he was more fervent in resisting the same than all the
rest, until he was pulled back by the hand of God; which thing he saith the chief
priests and elders can testify. Therefore, there can be no suspicion in such a sudden
change. Whereas he saith, that he had letters given him to deliver to the brethren, it
must be referred unto the Jews, as if he had called them his countrymen; but he
meant to appease them with a more honorable title. For this is Paul’s drift, that he
may declare his natural and lawful beginning which he took of that nation; − (501)
and also how desirous he was to be linked with them in friendship.
“ Ab ilia genta... originem,” origin from that nation.
COFFMA , "The way ... See under Acts 9:2.
The high priest ... It is not known if Paul meant the current high priest Ananias the
son of edebaeus, who was an unqualified son of the devil, "whose rapacity and
greed became a byword,"[6] who had been appointed by a brother of Agrippa I in
AD. 47, and who was finally murdered by the Jews themselves; or if he had
reference to Theophilus, "who was high priest at the time of Paul's journey to
Damascus."Acts 2p. 194.">[7] He was high priest from 37 A.D. to 38 A.D.[8] It is
fully possible that both these men were in Paul's audience at the time of this speech.
[6] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 449.
Acts 2p. 194.">[7] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 19, Acts 2p. 194.
[8] W. J. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 586.
COKE, "Acts 22:4. And I persecuted this way unto the death,— We know that he
was concerned in the death of Stephen: ch. Acts 8:1 and if he was not so in that of
many more, it was not for want of zeal and rage, but merely of power. However,
there is no reason to think that the sacred history contains a full account of all the
outrages committed against Christians during the period to which it extends
ELLICOTT, “(4) And I persecuted this way.—The speaker obviously uses the
current colloquial term (see otes on Acts 9:2; Acts 19:23), used by the disciples as

Acts 22 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Acts 22 commentary

Similar to Acts 22 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Acts 22 commentary