Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence. Acts 22:1-21 Paul's defence J. Clark. 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" (ver. 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. )

Benson Commentary Acts 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. Acts 22:1-2 . Men, brethren, and fathers — Of whatsoever age, rank, or circumstance of life you are; hear ye my defence — Which ye could not hear before for the tumult. And when they heard that he spake in their vulgar tongue, then called the Hebrew dialect, they kept the more silence — Were the more disposed, numerous as the assembly was, to hearken to him attentively. Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 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 . Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. Acts 22:5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. Acts 22:6 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. Acts 22:6-16 . And as I made my journey, &c., about noon — For all was done in the face of the sun; suddenly there shone a great light — By whatever method God reveals himself to us, we shall have everlasting cause to remember it; especially when he has gone, in any remarkable manner, out of his common way, for this gracious purpose. If so, we should often dwell on the particular circumstance, and be ready, on every proper occasion, to recount these wonders of power and love for the encouragement and instruction of others. See notes on Acts 9:3-18 , where the substance of this paragraph occurs, and is explained. They that were with me heard not the voice — Distinctly, but only a confused noise. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law — A truly religious person, and though a believer in Christ, yet a strict observer of the law of Moses. The God of our fathers hath chosen thee — Ananias’s giving God this appellation, the God of our fathers, shows that he was himself a Jew by birth, who observed the law of the fathers, and relied on the promises made to them: that thou shouldest know his will — By immediate revelation from himself, Galatians 1:12 . And see that Just One — The Lord Jesus, called the Just, or Righteous One, with a reference to the conduct of the Jews, who crucified him under a pretence of his being a malefactor. This is an additional proof to what we read, Acts 9:5 , (where see the note,) that Saul did really see Christ, appearing even in a human form; and hear the voice of his mouth — And that in such a manner, as to be taught his will immediately from himself. This was a peculiar privilege to which Paul was chosen, namely, to see Christ here on earth, even after his ascension into heaven! Stephen, indeed, saw him at the right hand of God, but Paul saw him standing, as it were, at his right hand. This honour none had but Paul. Be baptized, and wash away thy sins — Baptism, administered to real penitents, was intended to be both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this on any person till he submitted to baptism; and this may explain, in some measure, in what sense baptism may be said to wash away sins, and elsewhere to save. See Acts 2:28 ; 1 Peter 3:21 . Acts 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Acts 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. Acts 22:9 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. Acts 22:10 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. Acts 22:11 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. Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there , Acts 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. Acts 22:14 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. Acts 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:17 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; Acts 22:17-21 . When I was come again to Jerusalem — From Damascus; and prayed in the temple — By this he shows that he still paid the temple its due honour, as the house of prayer; I was in a trance — Or ecstasy. Perhaps he might continue standing all the while, with an intenseness of countenance which, if it were observed by any near him, might be imputed to the fixedness of his mind in his devotions; or, if he fell down, it might be looked upon as an epileptic fit. And saw him — Jesus; saying to me, Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem — Because of the snares that will be laid for thee, and in order to preach where people will hear: for they will not — In Jerusalem; receive thy testimony — But, on the contrary, will rather attempt thy destruction. And — Presuming to expostulate with Christ himself on this occasion; I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned, &c. — They know that I was once of their mind; that I was as bitter an enemy to thy disciples as any of them; that I excited the civil power against them; and imprisoned them — And also raised the spiritual power against them; and beat them in every synagogue — Particularly in Stephen’s case, they know that, when he was stoned, I was standing by — Was aiding and abetting; and consenting to his death and — In token thereof, kept the raiment of them that slew him — That is, Lord, my former zeal against those that believed in thee is so well known to them all, by so many remarkable instances shown among them, that sure they must be convinced it is upon some certain and irresistible grounds of persuasion that I am now become a preacher of that faith I formerly destroyed and persecuted with so great zeal. And he said — Overruling my plea by a renewal of his charge; Depart — Reason no further on this subject, but go thy way immediately, according to my direction; for I will send thee far hence — Into distant countries; unto the Gentiles — And thou shalt preach my gospel, and publish the glad tidings of salvation, with much greater encouragement and success among them. It is not easy for a servant of Christ, who is himself deeply impressed with divine truths, to imagine to what a degree men are capable of hardening their hearts against them. He is often ready to think, with Paul, it is impossible for any to resist such evidence. But experience makes him wiser, and shows that wilful unbelief is proof against all truth and reason. Acts 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. Acts 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: Acts 22:20 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. Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. Acts 22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. Acts 22:22 . And they gave him audience — Heard him with quietness and attention; unto this word — Till he began to speak of his mission to the Gentiles, and this in such a manner as implied that the Jews were in danger of being cast off; but no sooner did he mention this, than the multitude, especially such of them as had come from Asia, became instantly perfectly enraged, and cried out with vehemence, Away with such a fellow from the earth — Such an impudent blasphemer; for it is not fit that he should live — Any longer upon it, since he shows himself to be such a traitor to God, and an enemy to his chosen people, in pretending to have a commission to go and preach to the ignorant and reprobated Gentiles. Thus the men that have been the greatest blessings of their age, have often been represented, not only as the burdens of the earth, but as the pests of their generation. He who was worthy of the greatest honours in life is condemned as not worthy of life itself! Acts 22:23 And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, Acts 22:23-24 . And as they cried out — In this furious manner; and cast — Or tore; off their clothes — In token of indignation and horror at this pretended blasphemy: or, as Dr. Whitby thinks, as in the case of Stephen, that they might be ready to stone him; and threw dust into the air — Through vehemence of rage, which they knew not how to give vent to; the chief captain — Not knowing the particulars of what had passed, but perceiving, by the effect, that Paul had rather exasperated than appeased them by the apology which he had been permitted to make, commanded that he should be brought into the castle, and — As no witnesses were produced in a regular way to give information against him, he bade that he should be examined by scourging — In order that he might get to know by his own confession, since he could not learn it any other way; wherefore they cried so against him — That the Romans used this method of scourging to compel real or supposed criminals to make confession, is proved by Dr. Lardner, and several other learned writers. Acts 22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. Acts 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Acts 22:25-29 . And as they — The soldiers ordered by the tribune; were binding him with thongs — In order to their scourging him; Paul said unto the centurion that stood by — To see the tribune’s orders executed; Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? — A freeman of Rome might be bound with a chain, and beaten with a staff; but he might not be bound with thongs, neither scourged nor beaten with rods. The centurion told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest — Greek, ??? ?? ??????? ?????? , consider what thou art about to do; for this man is a Roman — Yea, and there was a stronger reason to stop proceedings, and to consider, for this man was a servant of God. Paul said, I was free born — Not, as some have supposed, because he was born at Tarsus; for, as Dr. Lardner has unanswerably proved, that was not a Roman colony, or what the Romans called municipium, a free town, or a place where all the natives were free of Rome by birth. But, it is probable, either his father, or some of his ancestors, had been made free of Rome for some military service. We learn hence, that we are under no obligations, as Christians, to give up our civil privileges (which we ought to receive and prize as the gifts of God) to every insolent invader. In a thousand circumstances, gratitude to God and duty to men will oblige us to insist upon them, and engage us to strive to transmit them improved to posterity. Then straightway they — Who had bound him, and were about to examine him by scourging; departed from him — Not daring to proceed; and the chief captain — Whom we may justly suppose to have had considerable influence at Rome; also was afraid, because — Though he had not scourged him, yet he had bound him — In order to his being scourged; which was a breach of privilege, for which he might have been accused by Paul to his superiors. Acts 22:26 When the centurion heard that , he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Acts 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. Acts 22:28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Acts 22:29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. Acts 22:30 On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them. Acts 22:30 . On the morrow — The chief captain, having become more anxious to know certainly what Paul’s crime was, since he understood that he was a Roman citizen; loosed him from his bands — In which he had laid him a close prisoner; and commanded the chief priests, and all their council — All the members of the sanhedrim; to appear — Or to come together and hold a court; and brought Paul down — From the castle; and set him before them — That he might be examined and tried according to the laws and usages of his own country; in order that the most seditious of the Jews might have no reason to complain of the manner in which they were treated. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Acts 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Chapter 1 THE TRAINING OF SAUL THE RABBI Acts 7:58 ; Acts 22:3 THE appearance of St. Paul upon the stage of Christian history marks a period of new development and of more enlarged activity. The most casual reader of the Acts of the Apostles must see that a personality of vast power, force, individuality, has now entered the bounds of the Church, and that henceforth St. Paul, his teaching, methods, and actions, will throw all others into the shade. Modern German critics have seized upon this undoubted fact and made it the foundation on which they have built elaborate theories concerning St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Some of them have made St. Paul the inventor of a new form of Christianity, more elaborate, artificial, and dogmatic than the simple religion of nature which, as they think, Jesus Christ taught. Others have seen in St. Paul the great rival and antagonist of St. Peter, and have seen in the Acts a deliberate attempt to reconcile the opposing factions of Peter and Paul by representing St. Paul’s career as modelled upon that of Peter. These theories are, we believe, utterly groundless; but they show at the same time what an important event in early Church history St. Paul’s conversion was, and how necessary a thorough comprehension of his life and training if we wish to understand the genesis of our holy religion. Who and whence, then, was this enthusiastic man who is first introduced to our notice in connection with St. Stephen’s martyrdom? What can we glean from Scripture and from secular history concerning his earlier career? I am not going to attempt to do what Conybeare and Howson thirty years ago, or Archdeacon Farrar in later times, have executed with a wealth of learning and a profuseness of imagination which I could not pretend to possess. Even did I possess them it would be impossible, for want of space, to write such a biography of St. Paul as these authors have given to the public. Let us, however, strive to gather up such details of St. Paul’s early life and training as the New Testament, illustrated by history, sets before us. Perhaps we shall find that more is told us than strikes the ordinary superficial reader. His parentage is known to us from St. Paul’s own statement. His father and mother were Jews of the Dispersion, as the Jews scattered abroad amongst the Gentiles were usually called; they were residents at Tarsus in Cilicia, and by profession belonged to the Pharisees who then formed the more spiritual and earnest religious section of the Jewish people. We learn this from three passages. In his defence before the Council, recorded in Acts 23:6 , he tells us that he was "a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees." There was no division in religious feeling between the parents. His home life and his earliest years knew nothing of religious jars and strife. Husband and wife were joined not only in the external bonds of marriage, but in the profounder union still of spiritual sentiment and hope, a memory which may have inspired a deeper meaning, begotten of personal experience in the warning delivered to the Corinthians, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers." Of the history of his parents and ancestors we know practically nothing more for certain, but we can glean a little from other notices. St. Paul tells us that he belonged to a special division among the Jews, of which we have spoken a good deal in the former volume when dealing with St. Stephen. The Jews at this period were divided into Hebrews and Hellenists: that is, Hebrews who by preference and in their ordinary practice spoke the Hebrew tongue, and Hellenists who spoke Greek and adopted Greek civilisation and customs. St. Paul tells us in Php 3:5 that he was "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews," a statement which he substantially repeats in 2 Corinthians 11:22 . Now it was almost an impossibility for a Jew of the Dispersion to belong to the Hebrews. His lot was cast in a foreign land, his business mixed him up with the surrounding pagans so that the use of the Greek language was an absolute necessity; while the universal practice of his fellow-countrymen in conforming themselves to Greek customs, Greek philosophy, and Greek civilisation rendered the position of one who would stand out for the old Jewish national ideas and habits a very trying and a very peculiar one. Here, however, comes in an ancient tradition, recorded by St. Jerome, which throws some light upon the difficulty. Scripture tells us that St. Paul was born at Tarsus. Our Lord in His conversation with Ananias in Acts 9:2 , calls him "Saul of Tarsus," while again the Apostle himself in the twenty-second chapter describes himself as "a Jew born in Tarsus." But then the question arises, how came his parents to Tarsus, and how, being in Tarsus, could they be described as Hebrews while all around and about them their countrymen were universally Hellenists? St. Jerome here steps in to help us. He relates, in his "Catalogue of Illustrious Writers," that "Paul the Apostle, previously called Saul, being outside the number of the Twelve, was of the tribe of Benjamin and of the city of the Jewish Gischala; on the capture of which by the Romans he migrated with them to Tarsus." Now this statement of Jerome, written four hundred years after the event, is clearly inaccurate in many respects, and plainly contradicts the Apostle’s own words that he was born in Tarsus. But yet the story probably embodies a tradition substantially true, that St. Paul’s parents were originally from Galilee. Galilee was intensely Hebrew. It was provincial, and the provinces are always far less affected by advance in thought or in religion than the towns, which are the chosen homes of innovation and of progress. Hellenism might flourish in Jerusalem, but in Galilee it would not be tolerated; and the tough, sturdy Galileans alone would have moral and religious grit enough to maintain the old Hebrew customs and language; even amid the abounding inducements to an opposite course which a great commercial centre like Tarsus held out. Assuredly our own experience affords many parallels illustrating the religious history of St. Paul’s family. The Evangelical revival, the development of ritual in the Church of England, made their mark first of all in the towns, and did not affect the distant country districts till long after. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands is almost a different religion from the more enlightened and more cultured worship of Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Low Church and Orange developments of Ulster bring us back to the times of the last century, and seem passing strange to the citizens of London, Manchester, or Dublin, who first make their acquaintance in districts where obsolete ideas and cries still retain a power quite forgotten in the vast tide of life and thought which sways the great cities. And yet these rural backwaters, as we may call them, retain their influence, and show strong evidence of life even in the great cities; and so it is that even in London and Edinburgh and Glasgow and Dublin congregations continue to exist in their remoter districts and back streets where the prejudices and ideas of the country find full sway and exercise. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands and the Orangeism of Ulster will be sought in vain in fashionable churches, but in smaller assemblies they will be found exercising a sway and developing a life which will often astonish a superficial observer. So it was doubtless in Tarsus. The Hebrews of Galilee would delight to separate themselves. They would look down upon the Hellenism of their fellow-countrymen as a sad falling away from ancient orthodoxy, but their declension would only add a keener zest to the zeal with which the descendants of the Hebrews of Gischala, even in the third and fourth generations, as it may have been, would retain the ancient customs and language of their Galilean forefathers. St. Paul and his parents might seem to an outsider mere Hellenists, but their Galilean origin and training enabled them to retain the intenser Judaism which qualified the Apostle to describe himself as not only of the stock of Israel, but as a Hebrew of the Hebrews. St. Paul’s more immediate family connections have also some light thrown upon them in the New Testament. We learn, for instance, from Acts 23:16 , that he had a married sister, who probably lived at Jerusalem, and may have been even a convert to Christianity; for we are told that her son, having heard of the Jewish plot to murder the Apostle, at once reported it to St. Paul himself, who thereupon put his nephew into communication with the chief captain in whose custody he lay. While again, in Romans 16:7 ; Romans 16:11 , he sends salutations to Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, his kinsmen, who were residents in Rome; and in verse 21 { Romans 16:21 } of the same chapter joins Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, his kinsmen, with himself in the Christian wishes for the welfare of the Roman Church, with which he closes the Epistle. It is said, indeed, that this may mean simply that these men were Jews, and that St. Paul regarded all Jews as his kinsmen. But this notion is excluded by the form of the twenty-first verse, where he first sends greetings from Timothy, whom St. Paul dearly loved, and who was a circumcised Jew, not a proselyte merely, but a true Jew, on his mother’s side, at least; and then the Apostle proceeds to name the persons whom he designates his kinsmen. St. Paul evidently belonged to a family of some position in the Jewish world, whose ramifications were dispersed into very distant quarters of the empire. Every scrap of information which we can gain concerning the early life and associations of such a man is very precious; we may therefore point out that we can even get a glimpse of the friends and acquaintances of his earliest days. Barnabas the Levite was of Cyprus, an island only seventy miles distant from Tarsus, In all probability Barnabas may have resorted to the Jewish schools of Tarsus, or may have had some other connections with the Jewish colony of that city. Some such early friendship may have been the link which bound Paul to Barnabas and enabled the latter to stand sponsor for the newly converted Saul when the Jerusalem Church was yet naturally suspicious of him. "And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles." { Acts 9:26-27 } This ancient friendship enabled Barnabas to pursue the Apostle with those offices of consolation which his nascent faith demanded. He knew Saul’s boyhood haunts, and therefore it is we read in Acts 11:25 that "Barnabas went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul" when a multitude of the Gentiles began to pour into the Church of Antioch. Barnabas knew his old friend’s vigorous, enthusiastic character, his genius, his power of adaptation, and therefore he brought him back to Antioch, where for a whole year they were joined in one holy brotherhood of devout and successful labour for their Master. The friendships and love of boyhood and of youth received a new consecration and were impressed with a loftier ideal from the example of Saul and of Barnabas. Then again there are other friends of his youth to whom he refers. Timothy’s family lived at Lystra, and Lystra was directly connected with Tarsus by a great road which ran straight from Tarsus to Ephesus, offering means for that frequent communication in which the Jews ever delighted. St. Paul’s earliest memories carried him back to the devout atmosphere of the pious Jewish family at Lystra, which he had long known, where Lois the grandmother and Eunice the mother had laid the foundations of that spiritual life which under St. Paul’s own later teaching flourished so wondrously in the life of Timothy. Let us pass on, however, to a period of later development. St. Paul’s earliest teaching at first was doubtless that of the home. As with Timothy so with the Apostle; his earliest religious teacher was doubtless his mother, who from his infancy imbued him with the great rudimentary truths which lie at the basis of both the Jewish and the Christian faith. His father too took his share. He was a Pharisee, and would be anxious to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law and every minute rule which the Jewish doctors had deduced by an attention and a subtlety concentrated for ages upon the text of the Old Testament. And one great doctor had laid down, "When a boy begins to speak, his father ought to talk with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law"; a rule which would exactly fall in with his father’s natural inclination. He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, though dwelling among Hellenists. He prided himself on speaking the Hebrew language alone, and he therefore would take the greatest pains that the future Apostle’s earliest teachings should be in that same sacred tongue, giving him from boyhood that command over Hebrew and its dialects which he afterwards turned to the best of uses. At five years old Jewish children of parents like St. Paul’s advanced to the direct study of the law under the guidance of some doctor, whose school they daily attended, as another rabbi had expressly enacted, "At five years old a boy should apply himself to the study of Holy Scripture." Between five and thirteen Saul was certainly educated at Tarsus, during which period his whole attention was concentrated upon sacred learning and upon mechanical or industrial training. It was at this period of his life that St. Paul must have learned the trade of tent making, which during the last thirty years of his life stood him in such good stead, rendering him independent of all external aid so far as his bodily wants were concerned. A question has often been raised as to the social position of St. Paul’s family; and people, bringing their Western ideas with them, have thought that the manual trade which he was taught betokened their humble rank. But this is quite a mistake. St. Paul’s family must have occupied at least a fairly comfortable position, when they were able to send a member of their house to Jerusalem to be taught in the most celebrated rabbinical school of the time. But it was the law of that school - and a very useful law it was too - that every Jew, and especially every teacher, should possess a trade by which he might be supported did necessity call for it. It was a common proverb among the Jews at that time that "He who taught not his son a trade taught him to be a thief." "It is incumbent on the father to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him the law, and to teach him some occupation, for, as Rabbi Judah saith, whosoever teacheth not his son to do some work is as if he taught him robbery." "Rabbin Gamaliel saith, He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? He is like to a vineyard that is fenced." Such was the authoritative teaching of the schools, and Jewish practice was in accordance therewith. Some of the most celebrated rabbis of that time were masters of a mechanical art or trade. The vice-president of the Sanhedrin was a merchant for four years, and then devoted himself to the study of the law. One rabbi was a shoemaker; Rabbi Juda, the great Cabalist, was a tailor; Rabbi Jose was brought up as a tanner; another rabbi as a baker, and yet another as a carpenter. And so as a preparation for the office and life work to which his father had destined him, St. Paul during his earlier years was taught one of the common trades of Tarsus, which consisted in making tents either out of the hair or the skin of the Angora goats which browsed over the hills of central Asia Minor. It was a trade that was common among Jews. Aquila and his wife Priscilla were tent-makers, and therefore St. Paul united himself to them and wrought at his trade in their company at Corinth. { Acts 18:3 } It has often been asserted that at this period of his life St. Paul must have studied Greek philosophy and literature, and men have pointed to his quotations from the Greek poets Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander, to prove the attention which the Apostle must have bestowed upon them. {See Acts 17:28 , Titus 1:12 , 1 Corinthians 15:33 } Tarsus was certainly one of the great universities of that age, ranking in the first place along with Athens and Alexandria. So great was its fame that the Roman emperors even were wont to go to Tarsus to look for rotors to instruct their sons. But Tarsus was at the very same time one of the most morally degraded spots within the bounds of the Roman world, and it is not at all likely that a strict Hebrew, a stern Pharisee, would have allowed his son to encounter the moral taint involved in freely mixing with such a degraded people and in the free study of a literature permeated through and through with sensuality and idolatry. St. Paul doubtless at this early period of his life gained that colloquial knowledge of Greek which was every day becoming more and more necessary for the ordinary purposes of secular life all over the Roman Empire, even in the most backward parts of Palestine. But it is not likely that his parents would have sanctioned his attendance at the lectures on philosophy and poetry delivered at the University of Tarsus, where he would have been initiated into all the abominations of paganism in a style most attractive to human nature. At thirteen years of age, or thereabouts, young Saul, having now learned all the sacred knowledge which the local rabbis could teach, went up to Jerusalem just as our Lord did, to assume the full obligations of a Jew and to pursue his higher studies at the great Rabbinical University of Jerusalem. To put it in modern language, Saul went up to Jerusalem to be confirmed and admitted to the full privileges and complete obligations of the Levitical Law, and he also went up to enter college. St. Paul himself describes the period of life on which he now entered as that in which he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. We have already touched in a prior volume upon the subject of Gamaliel’s history and his relation to Christianity, but here it is necessary to say something of him as a teacher, in which capacity he laid the foundations of modes of thought and reasoning, the influence of which moulded St. Paul’s whole soul and can be traced all through St. Paul’s Epistles. Gamaliel is an undoubtedly historical personage. The introduction of him in the Acts of the Apostles is simply another instance of that marvellous historical accuracy which every fresh investigation and discovery show to be a distinguishing feature of this book. The Jewish Talmud was not committed to writing for more than four centuries after Gamaliel’s time, and yet it presents Gamaliel to us in exactly the same light as the inspired record does, telling us that "with the death of Gamaliel I the reverence for the Divine law ceased, and the observance of purity and abstinence departed." Gamaliel came of a family distinguished in Jewish history both before and after his own time. He was of the royal House of David, and possessed in this way great historical claims upon the respect of the nation. His grandfather Hillel and his father Simeon were celebrated teachers and expounders of the law. His grandfather had founded indeed one of the leading schools of interpretation then favoured by the rabbis. His father Simeon is said by some to have been the aged man who took up the infant Christ in his arms and blessed God for His revealed salvation in the words of the "Nunc Dimittis"; while, as for Gamaliel himself, his teaching was marked by wisdom, prudence, liberality, and spiritual depth, so far as such qualities could exist in a professor of rabbinical learning. Gamaliel was a friend and contemporary of Philo, and this fact alone must have imported an element of liberality into his teaching. Philo was a widely read scholar who strove to unite the philosophy of Greece to the religion of Palestine, and Philo’s ideas must have permeated more or less into some at least of the schools of Jerusalem, so that, though St. Paul may not have come in contact with Greek literature in Tarsus, he may very probably have learned much about it in a Judaised, purified, spiritualised shape in Jerusalem. But the influence exercised on St. Paul by Gamaliel and through him by Philo, or men of his school, can be traced in other respects. The teaching of Gamaliel was as spiritual, I have said, as rabbinical teaching could have been; but this is not saying very much from the Christian point of view. The schools at Jerusalem in the time of Gamaliel were wholly engaged in studies of the most wearisome, narrow, petty, technical kind. Dr. Farrar has illustrated this subject with a great wealth of learning and examples in the fourth chapter of his "Life of St. Paul." The Talmud alone shows this, throwing a fearful light upon the denunciations of our Lord as regards the Pharisees, for it devotes a whole treatise to washings of the hands, and another to the proper method of killing fowls. The Pharisaic section of the Jews held, indeed, that there were two hundred and forty-eight commandments and three hundred and sixty-five prohibitions involved in the Jewish Law, all of them equally binding, and all of them so searching that if only one solitary Jew could be found who for one day kept them all and transgressed in no one direction, then the captivity of God’s people would cease and the Messiah would appear. I am obliged to pass over this point somewhat rapidly, and yet it is a most important one if we desire to know what kind of training the Apostle received; for, no matter how God’s grace may descend and the Divine Spirit may change the main directions of a man’s life, he never quite recovers himself from the effects of his early teaching. Dr. Farrar has bestowed much time and labour on this point. The following brief extract from his eloquent word, will give a vivid idea of the endless puerilities, the infinite questions of pettiest, most minute, and most subtle bearing with which the time of St. Paul and his fellow-students must have been taken up, and which must have made him bitterly feel in the depths of his inmost being that, though the law may have been originally intended as a source of life, it had been certainly changed as regards his own particular case, and had become unto him an occasion of death. "Moreover, was there not mingled with all this nominal adoration of the Law a deeply seated hypocrisy, so deep that it was in a great measure unconscious? Even before the days of Christ the rabbis had learnt the art of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. They had long learnt to nullify what they professed to defend. The ingenuity of Hillel was quite capable of getting rid of any Mosaic regulation which had been found practically burdensome. Pharisees and Sadducees alike had managed to set aside in their own favour, by the devices of the mixtures, all that was disagreeable to themselves in the Sabbath scrupulosity. The fundamental institution of the Sabbatic year had been stultified by the mere legal fiction of the Prosbol. Teachers who were on the high road to a casuistry which could construct rules out of every superfluous particle, had found it easy to win credit for ingenuity by elaborating prescriptions to which Moses would have listened in mute astonishment. If there be one thing more definitely laid down in the Law than another, it is the uncleanness of creeping things; yet the Talmud assures us that no one is appointed a member of the Sanhedrin who does not possess sufficient ingenuity to prove from the written Law that a creeping thing is ceremonially clean; and that there was an unimpeachable disciple at Jabne who could adduce one hundred and fifty arguments in favour of the ceremonial cleanness of creeping things. Sophistry like this was at work even in the days when the young student of Tarsus sat at the feet of Gamaliel; and can we imagine any period of his life when he would not have been wearied by a system at once so meaningless, so stringent, and so insincere?" These words are true, thoroughly true, in their extremest sense. Casuistry is at all times a dangerous weapon with which to play, a dangerous science upon which to concentrate one’s attention. The mind is so pleased with the fascination of the precipice that one is perpetually tempted to see how near an approach can be made without a catastrophe, and then the catastrophe happens when it is least expected. But when the casuist’s attention is concentrated upon one volume like the law of Moses, interpreted in the thousand methods and combinations open to the luxuriant imagination of the East, then indeed the danger is infinitely increased, and we cease to wonder at the vivid, burning, scorching denunciations of the Lord as He proclaimed the sin of those who enacted that "Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor." St. Paul’s whole time must have been taken up in the school of Gamaliel with an endless study of such casuistical trifles; and yet that period of his life left marks which we can clearly trace throughout his writings. The method, for instance, in which St. Paul quotes the Old Testament is thoroughly rabbinical. It was derived from the rules prevalent in the Jewish schools, and therefore, though it may seem to us at times forced and unnatural, must have appeared to St. Paul and to the men of his time absolutely conclusive. When reading the Scriptures we Westerns forget the great difference between Orientals and the nations of Western Europe. Aristotle and his logic and his logical methods, with major and minor premises and conclusions following therefrom, absolutely dominate our thoughts. The Easterns knew nothing of Aristotle, and his methods availed nothing to their minds. They argued in quite a different style, and used a logic which he would have simply scorned. Analogy, allegory, illustration, form the staple elements of Eastern logic, and in their use St. Paul was elaborately trained in Gamaliel’s classes, and of their use his writings furnish abundant examples; the most notable of which will be found in his allegorical interpretation of the events of the wilderness journey of Israel in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 , where the pillar of cloud, and the passage of the Red Sea, and the manna, and the smitten rock become the emblems and types of the Christian Sacraments; and again, in St. Paul’s mystical explanation of Galatians 4:21-31 , where Hagar and Sarah are represented as typical of the two covenants, the old covenant leading to spiritual bondage and the new introducing to gospel freedom. These, indeed, are the most notable examples of St. Paul’s method of exegesis derived from the school of Gamaliel, but there are numberless others scattered all through his writings. If we view them through Western spectacles, we shall be disappointed and miss their force; but if we view them sympathetically, if we remember that the Jews quoted and studied the Old Testament to find illustrations of their own ideas rather than proofs in our sense of the word, studied them as an enthusiastic Shakespeare or Tennyson or Wordsworth student pores over his favourite author to find parallels which others, who are less bewitched, find very slight and very dubious indeed, then we shall come to see how it is that St. Paul quotes an illustration of his doctrine of justification by faith from Habakkuk 2:4 - "The soul of the proud man is not upright, but the just man shall live by his steadfastness"; a passage which originally applied to the Chaldeans and the Jews, predicting that the former should enjoy no stable prosperity, but that the Jews, ideally represented as the just or upright man, should live securely because of their fidelity; and can find an allusion to the resurrection of Christ in "the sure mercies of David," which God had promised to give His people in the third verse of the fifty-fifth of Isaiah. Rabbinical learning, Hebrew discipline, Greek experience and life, these conspired together with natural impulse and character to frame and form and mould a man who must make his mark upon the world at large in whatever direction he chooses for his walk in life. It will now be our duty to show what were the earliest results of this very varied education. Acts 22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. 3 Chapter 17 A PRISONER IN BONDS. Acts 21:2-3 ; Acts 21:17 ; Acts 21:33 ; Acts 21:39-40 ; Acts 22:22 ; Acts 22:30 ; Acts 24:1 ; Acts 26:1 THE title we have given to this chapter, "A Prisoner in Bonds," expresses the central idea of the last eight chapters of the Acts. Twenty years and more had now elapsed since St. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. These twenty years had been times of unceasing and intense activity. Now we come to some five years when the external labours, the turmoil and the cares of active, life, have to be put aside, and St. Paul was called upon to stand apart and learn the lesson which every-day experience teaches to all, -how easily the world can get along without us, how smoothly God’s designs fulfil themselves without our puny assistance. The various passages we have placed at the head of this chapter cover six chapters of the Acts, from the twenty-first to the twenty-sixth. It may seem a large extent of the text to be comprised within the limits of one of our chapters, but it must be remembered that a great deal of the space thus included is taken up with the narrative of St. Paul’s conversion, which is twice set forth at great length, first to the multitude from the stairs of the tower of Antonia, and then in his defence which he delivered before Agrippa and Bernice and Festus, or else with the speeches delivered by him before the assembled Sanhedrin and before Felix the governor, wherein he dwells on points previously and sufficiently discussed. We have already considered the narrative of the Apostle’s conversion at great length, and noted the particular directions in which St. Paul’s own later versions at Jerusalem and Caesarea throw light upon St. Luke’s independent account. To the earlier chapters of this book we therefore would refer the reader who wishes to discuss St. Paul’s conversion, and several of the other subjects which he introduces. Let us now, however, endeavour, first of all, to gather up into one connected story the tale of St. Paul’s journeys, sufferings, and imprisonments from the time he left Miletus after his famous address till he set sail for Rome from the port of Caesarea, a prisoner destined for the judgment-seat of Nero. This narrative will embrace from at least the summer of A.D. 58, when he was arrested at Jerusalem, to the autumn of 60, when he set sail for Rome. This connected story will enable us to see the close union of the various parts of the narrative which is now hidden from us because of the division into chapters, and will enable us to fix more easily upon the leading points which lend themselves to the purposes of an expositor. I. St. Paul after parting from the Ephesian Church, embarked on board his ship, and then coasted along the western shore of Asia Minor for three days, sailing amid scenery of the most enchanting description, specially in that late spring or early summer season at which the year had then arrived. It was about the first of May, and all nature was bursting into new life, when even hearts the hardest and least receptive of external influences feel as if they were living a portion of their youth over again. And even St. Paul, rapt in the contemplation of things unseen, must have felt himself touched by the beauty of the scenes through which he was passing, though St. Luke tells us nothing but the bare succession of events. Three days after leaving Miletus the sacred company reached Patara, a town at the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the coast begins to turn round towards the east. Here St. Paul found a trading ship sailing direct to Tyre and Palestine, and therefore with all haste transferred himself and his