CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 22:1. Men, brethren and fathers.—Or, brethren and fathers, the use of “men” in English being unnecessary. Compare the commencement of Stephen’s address to the Sanhedrim (Acts 7:2). Conybeare and Howson (2:276) “account for this peculiar mode of address” by supposing “that mixed with the crowd were men of venerable age and dignity, perhaps members of the Sanhedrim, ancient scribes and doctors of the law, who were stirring up the people against the heretic.” More likely this was the usual way of addressing an assembly which included scribes and elders of the people (Spence). Hear my defence.—The construction is not a double genitive of the thing and the person—hear me and hear my defence, but a genitive of the thing; “my” being dependent, not on “hear,” but on “defence.” The defence consists of three parts.
Acts 22:2. In the Hebrew tongue or language.—See on Acts 21:40.
Acts 22:3, which begins the first part (Acts 22:1-5), takes up the acknowledgment as to his own person which has just been made to Lysias (Acts 21:39). The best texts omit verily. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.—On Gamaliel. See Acts 5:34. “The scholars sat upon the ground or upon benches, the teachers upon stools (Matthew 23:2)” (Holtzmann). According to this punctuation, which is commonly adopted (Calvin, Meyer, Alford, Wendt, Zöckler, Holtzmann, Westcott and Hort), Paul must have removed from Tarsus to Jerusalem when a youth (compare Acts 26:4); according to a different punctuation followed by other exegetes (Griesbach, Lachmann. De Wette, Bethge, Hackett, Conybeare and Howson), the words should be rendered, at the feet of Gamaliel taught—ἀνατεθραμμένος, having regard (it is said) more to physical growth, while πεπαιδευμένος refers rather to mental culture or professional training. But the way in which the sentences are built, the participle preceding its qualifying clause, appears to speak for the former translation as the more probable. Hausrath considers the story of Paul’s studying under Gamaliel in Jerusalem as apocryphal (Der Apostel Paulus, pp. 34, 35). The perfect should be the strict manner of the law of the fathers.—The word ἀκρίβεια, which occurs only here (compare Acts 26:5), was the customary catchword for Pharisaic legalism (see Wis. 12:1; Jos., Ant., IX. x. 2; Wars, II. viii. 14; Life, 38). For Paul’s legal strictness see his statements elsewhere (Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:5). Zealous towards God. Better, for God: like zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20). As ye all are this day.—“A conciliatory comparison” (Alford). “Must not that have constrained the Jews to the admission: ‘This man understands us, but we understand him not’ ” (Besser).
Acts 22:4. This way.—See on Acts 9:2: “He would willingly have struck down the believers in Messiah with a stroke” (Holtzmann). Unto death.—Or, as far as death. Not the aim merely (Meyer), but the actual result (Hackett), of his persecution (compare Acts 22:20; Acts 16:10).
Acts 22:5. The high priest of the time (Acts 9:1), Caiaphas, seems to have been still alive when Paul spoke. He, along with the elders, composed the Sanhedrim (Luke 22:66). Unto the brethren.—Not against the Christians (Bornemann), but to the Jews in Damascus (Holtzmann, Zöckler, and others); specially to the Jewish rulers in the synagogues (Acts 9:2). Them which were there (ἐκεῖσε) meant those Jewish believers who, having fled thither (to Damascus) in consequence of the persecution (Acts 8:1), had settled there. To be punished.—For apostatising from the law of their fathers.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 22:1-5
Paul’s Survey of His Past Career; or, What He Was and Did before Conversion
I. His birth.—
1. As to race. He was not an Egyptian (Acts 21:38), as the commander of the castle supposed, neither a Greek nor a Roman, but a Jew, a true son of Abraham (Romans 11:4), “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). Whatever other nations thought of the Jews, the Jews had exalted opinions of themselves, as the very salt of the earth, the flower and cream of humanity. To them pertained “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the covenants of God and the promises” (Romans 9:4). If race is not everything in a man’s make-up, still less is it nothing. Heredity goes back beyond immediate parentage to the family stock, and has its roots in the original race. The Jewish race was physically pure, intellectually high, and religiously strong.
2. As to place. A native of Tarsus, in Cilicia (see on Acts 9:30), and therefore a citizen of no mean city (Acts 21:39). This circumstance explained his knowledge of Greek (Acts 21:37), his acquaintance with Greek literature (Acts 17:28), and his strong sympathy with the Gentiles, and fitted him in an eminent degree for his life vocation as a missionary of the cross to the Gentiles. The place in which a man is born, no less than other factors in his terrestial environment, contributes important influences, which go to shape his career and mould his character. Most men owe more to their birthplaces than they suppose. The spot in which a man first awakes to consciousness has the earliest and therefore the best chance of making an impression—favourable or unfavourable—upon his susceptible nature.
II. His education.—
1. His university. Jerusalem. Though doubtless his training commenced at home in Tarsus, he appears to have at an early period removed to the metropolis of Judæa, where (this, of course, is pure conjecture) his sister (Acts 23:16) may have preceded him along with her husband. To this his parents may have assented, both because of the hallowed interest which to every pious Jew gathered round the Holy City, and because of some promise of brilliant talent which may have been detected in his opening youth.
2. His teacher. Gamaliel (see on Acts 23:34), who belonged to the school of Hillel, and had apparently great influence in the Sanhedrim (23:40). The Hillelites, who had been trained by their master to be both tolerant and broad, sometimes verging towards laxity, were supposed to be more favourably disposed towards Christianity than the Shammaites.
3. His learning. In the Law, which he was taught to regard with
(1) religious respect as the Law of God, and therefore charged with absolute authority;
(2) profound veneration, as the Law of the fathers—i.e., given to the fathers of Israel (not to the sons, as modern criticism teaches!); and
(3) dutiful submission as the law of righteousness, which called for the strictest obedience to its every jot and tittle as the only means of attaining to salvation and eternal life.
III. His zeal.—
1. Its nature. It was zeal for the Law, for its outward observance, for the external performances it required, “the meats and drinks, and divers washings,” “the sacrifices and offerings,” “the ordinances and statutes,” “the rites and ceremonies,” it prescribed. In regard to all these he was a Pharisee by descent (Acts 23:6), by training (Acts 26:5), and by conviction (Philippians 3:6).
2. Its object. To secure the Divine favour. He was zealous for God—i.e., his zeal for the Law rested on the conviction
(1) that the Law was of Divine origin and therefore binding on the consciences of men, and especially of Jews, and
(2) that obedience to its prescriptions was the only way of attaining to Divine favour.
3. Its degree. He was as intense in his devotion to the Law and to God as they themselves were who then gnashed their teeth against him and cried, “Away with him!” Indeed, as touching the righteousness of the Law, he claimed to be, like themselves, blameless (Philippians 3:6)—a fine touch of conciliating speech!
IV. His persecution.—
1. Its object. Directed against the Christians, the people of “this way,” both men and women. He then did what they were doing now.
2. Its character. Ferocious, bloodthirsty, murderous. Not satisfied with scattering the disciples of the Crucified from the Holy City, he caused them to be arrested and thrown into prison, without respect to age or sex; and as if that were not enough, he pursued them even unto death. Verily he had then been “a ravening wolf of the tribe of Benjamin.”
3. Its notoriety. This thing had not been done in a corner. The high priest of the day (probably alive when Paul spoke) and “all the estate of the elders,” or “the whole presbytery”—i.e., the entire body of the eldership, including the Sanhedrim and Senate—were cognisant of his activity and eminence in this respect. He had then been “a burning and a shining light,” a renowned champion of the faith, a kind of Hebrew Sir Galahad, who could have boasted—
“My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure;
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.”
4. Its extent. Not content with cleansing Jerusalem, or even the Holy Land, of the apostates, as he believed them to be, he had swooped down upon them in distant Damascus, bearing with him missives, mandates, warrants, from the high priest and the Sanhedrim, empowering him to arrest them in the synagogues of that city, and fetch them, bound, to Jerusalem to be punished.
Learn—
1. The accuracy of Paul’s life-story as narrated by Luke 2. The vividness of Paul’s recollection of his early years.
3. The courage of the apostle in making known to his countrymen the fact of his renunciation of their ancient faith.
4. The skill of the apostle in speaking so as to disarm the suspicions of his enemies.
5. The mistaken and disastrous course to which one may be led who is impelled by a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (compare Acts 26:9; Romans 10:2
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 22:1-2. The Qualities Requisite for a Christian Orator.
I. A spirit of courage.—Not of defiance or arrogance, but of calm fortitude which fears not man—neither his flatteries nor his frowns, neither his threatenings nor his bribes—but rests on God as its support in the wildest hurricanes of human passion and in the most alarming dangers. Such fortitude Paul possessed when he faced the mob from the castle stairs.
II. A spirit of meekness.—Not of cringing servility or of fawning adulation—neither of mock humility nor of affected self-depreciation, but of genuine self-forgetfulness, which overlooks all the faults and failings of its hearers, and makes nothing of their want of consideration for or even injustice towards itself. Such meekness Paul exhibited when, “though he had none but persecutors and murderers before him, he yet regarded and addressed them as brethren and fathers, on account of the covenant and promises of God.”
III. A spirit of love.—Not of gushing sentimentality or of sugared verbiage, but of true, manly, and religious affection, which sees in those it addresses persons who are men and brethren, of the same flesh and blood, of the same moral and religious value in the eyes of heaven, susceptible of becoming partakers of the same high blessings of salvation and eternal life as itself.
IV. A spirit of simplicity.—Not of triviality or frivolity, but of holy intelligibility, which seeks not for language that will dazzle by its brilliance, but for speech that will charm by its lucidity and easiness of comprehension.
Acts 22:3-4. True Religion. What it is not and what it is.
I. What it is not.—
1. Not descert from religious ancestry. Paul, though the son of a Pharisee, was yet not possessed of true religion. Grace does not run in the blood.
2. Not education by pious teachers. Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the most learned and influential rabbis of his day; yet Paul did not acquire religion. Grace is not the product of culture and training.
3. Not acquaintance with the letter of the Scriptures. Paul, thoroughly instructed in the law of Moses, both moral and ceremonial, was yet not religious. Grace is something more than mental illumination.
4. Not zeal in the performance of religious duties. Paul was so devoted to the outward rites and ceremonies of religion, and so absorbed in the pursuit of what he believed to be “righteousness,” that he could without hesitation describe his conformity to the law as “blameless”; and yet he was destitute of religion, Grace is not a matter of mere external performance.
5. Not activity in promoting and defending the faith. Paul had both, and yet was without religion. Grace is not of works.
II. What it is.—The exact opposite of all these.
1. It is conditioned by a new or second birth—a birth from above (John 3:3). What Paul calls a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).
2. It is promoted by being taught of the Spirit (John 14:26), or taught by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:21).
3. It is nourished by a spiritual acquaintance with the Scriptures (John 6:63).
4. It consists in an inward conformity of the soul to the requirements of God’s law (Romans 7:22).
5. It shows itself in a sincere desire to extend the faith—not by force of arms, but by the power of the truth.
Acts 22:3-5. The Promising but Disappointing Youth of Paul.
I. The magniflcent advantages he enjoyed.—
1. In his parentage. Having been born of Jewish parents, members of the noblest and most religious race then on earth.
2. In his birthplace. In Tarsus, where he came in contact with the civilisation and culture of the most intellectual people of the Old World.
3. In his education. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, the most renowned teacher of the day.
4. In his religious instincts. Instructed according to the strict manner of the law of his fathers, he was inwardly fired with a zeal for God and religion which gave promise of splendid results in after years.
II. The miserable results he produced.—
1. In the blind legalism of his religion. One would almost have expected that a youth of culture and ability like Paul would have soared away far above and beyond the dead externalism of the Pharisaic circle in which he had been born and brought up.
2. In the feline cruelty of his disposition. One would have thought that so much education as Paul had received would have mollified rather than intensified, blunted rather than whetted, the natural savageism of his soul.
3. In the low conception of his life-mission. One might naturally have anticipated that a brilliant youth like that of Paul’s would have been devoted to the purifying and refining of his ancestral religion, and to the propagation of it by means of learned and eloquent expositions. Alas! it so degenerated as to place its splendid faculties at the service of the Sanhedrim, to be employed in the work of a common persecutor and assassin. To what base uses noblest souls may come!
Acts 22:4-5. Paul the Persecutor; or, the Spirit of Intolerance in Religion.
I. Whence it springs.—
1. From a wrong conception of religion, which cannot be manufactured by force, and does not consist in mere external conformity to law or ritual, but must ever arise as a free product of the soul, and consist of true inward submission of the heart and life to the will of God.
2. From a mistaken idea of human nature, which cannot be coerced into such submission, but must be sweetly persuaded and lovingly wooed to yield, to the will of God.
3. From a false estimate of the rights of man. While every man has a God-given right to think for himself in religion, and to persuade his neighbour, if he can, to think along with him, no man is entitled to dictate to his brother in the sphere of conscience or punish his brother because he exercises that liberty of which he has been put in possession by God.
4. From a defective calculation of the value of persecution, which never yet made a true convert, though it has multiplied hypocrites as well as created martyrs.
II. To what it leads.—
1. Suppression of all the nobler instincts of humanity. On the part of the persecutor, and not infrequently also on the part of the persecuted. It lets loose all the bad passions of the human heart, both in those who resort to violence and in those who resist it. It puts the persecutor down to the same level as the conspirator and brigand, murderer and assassin. It rouses within the persecuted feelings which are the opposite of meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering.
2. Perpetration of indiscriminate cruelty. It commonly shows itself, as in Paul’s case, to be absolutely devoid of one grain of mercy, to be destitute of pity, to be fierce and bloodthirsty, sparing neither sex nor age, but involving all against whom it rages in common and undistinguished slaughter. In short, it is the minister of hell, rather than the messenger of heaven.
3. Ignominious defeat of its own aims. The more a cause is persecuted the more it multiplies and grows. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” The religion that requires a sword for its propagation is not from above, but from beneath. Its final failure is foredoomed. “All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword” is true of the institutions for which, as well as of the persons by whom, the sword is wielded.
Acts 22:5. Mistaken Missions.
I. To persecute the cause and the people of God.
II. To propagate true religion by means of force.
III. To disseminate error, whether by lawful or unlawful means.
IV. To run on any errand without a certainty of having Heaven’s permission.