Acts 26:9

Act_26:9-11

I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

St. Pauls thought with himself

1. Emerson verily thought with himself that every subject was to be brought before him for his individual approval or disapproval. In nearly the last sermon he ever preached, he said, that how plainly soever such an ordinance as the Eucharist might seem, to others, to have been appointed by Christ Himself, unless it commended itself to his own judgment, he should have nothing to do with it. Paul condemned Christianity because it did not commend itself to his private judgment. He went much farther, too, than the philosopher. He not only thought, but did many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. A formidable example this of the extreme lengths to which the mind will go, when it decides against Christianity, not by testimony from without, but by the impulses of corrupt and obstinate self-will within. Then it falters not before the most terrific issues. It will try to demolish Christianity, and if it cannot accomplish quite so much in an age like this, when Christianity has become incorporate with the framework of civil society, it will, nevertheless, do its utmost in levelling its doctrines to its own equality, and pronouncing upon them as if questions of mere expediency, subject to its arbitrary and final settlement. What a parallel to Pauls havoc of the Church is the havoc which a mans thinking with himself is making in that time-honoured system of the Faith which the Church Catholic, in the ages all along, has upheld and sanctioned.

2. What cured Paul of his thinking for himself, and converted him into a believing and obedient Christian? His very first exclamation, after his restoration to moral soundness, furnishes the reply. He acted now in the spirit of that pledge which our Saviour made, when He said, If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. A pledge this so natural, that it was at once assented to by an Indian. He that is above, said Wesley to the Creek Indians, will not teach you, unless you avoid that which you already know is not good. One of the Indians answered, I believe that. He will not teach us while our hearts are not white. So then we must be content to receive the faith, as prepared for us by Gods own hands, and not manufactured out of our inward light, our unassisted mental resources. Then we shall make the grand discovery about which multitudes now fail, that the soul, when she surrenders at discretion, and leans on God, and on Gods providences to His Church, with a childs implicit trust, has a sustenance and support before undreamed of; and which reason, fretting for certainties, and often groping in the dark, or seeing as by the light of a tallow candle never can supply. (T. W. Colt, D. D.)

Fallibility of conscience

Conscience in your fallen state is as likely to be wrong as your clocks and watches, and you cannot be sure of the time of day unless you go to some infallible standard of time, so you cannot decide upon right and wrong by simple reference to your own convictions. It is not a full justification of your conduct to say your conscience approved what you did. What, my brother, is the state of your conscience? You know that even with the sundial you might take to it an artificial light, and throw from the gnomon upon the figures and lines a shadow that would not index the true time of day. And if your conscience act under the artificial light of the habits and customs of mankind, and not under the power of the light of Gods light, it is no guide as to your duty. What is it that governs your conscience? Is it the will of God, or the will of man? If God do not control it, then it is no correct index of what you ought to do, or of what you ought not to do. I thought, said Saul of Tarsus--I thought that I ought to do many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth. These were the things over which, in the course of a little time, he had most bitterly to mourn. (S. Martin.)

Pauls doctrinal petrifaction

In one sense, there is nothing that will hold a man more snugly prisoner than his own thought will. We weave the silken threads of the cocoon that we call our theology, and when we get through we are on the inside of it, as neat a prisoner as ever slept in a gaol. Some men are small simply because their ideas are small, and have been on so long, and have been put on so tight that they have not been able to burst them. Ideas are dangerous things. The possibilities of the direst bondage are in them. Probably we cannot get along in our religious life without having some system of doctrine, but I wish we could. But the next thing to it is to hold our formulae of doctrinal opinion purely as a provisional arrangement. When! say hold them as a provisional arrangement, I mean hold them just as we do the rounds of a ladder, clinging to each succeeding round only as something that will help to brace us for a new pull upward. What we want to say frankly and appreciate intensely, is that we have reached no finality in these things. And there will be no finality before eternitys sundown. But it is retorted upon me that this is to deny the tenability, and even the respectability, of any doctrinal position that any man under any circumstances can hold. Not a bit of it. A man trusts his sincere convictions, and he is bound to do so, but he is bound to trust them just exactly as in mountain climbing I put confidence in the rock that I plant my foot upon, trusting to it, trusting my whole weight to it, as something that will hold me steady till I have time to get my ice axe thrust so securely into a crevice in the overhanging cliff that I shall be able to draw myself up another length, and then plant my foot on some more rock. Now that is constructive. There is no suggestion of the negative about it. It is the only constructive theology there is. It is the only live theology. All other is either wired skeleton or stuffed skin; at any rate, a curiosity for the museum, rather than living ingredient in a live Church. That is not saying that, as expansive Christian thinkers, we are obliged to abrogate every old form and phraseology of doctrine. That would be neither sense nor Scripture. In order to be a live man you do not have to put on a new body every time you get up. But you live and enlarge, because, although your body may be old, it is the theatre of an expansive life that wins a new increment of fulness from the very morning that you wake up under. In order to have a live tree, you are not obliged to put in a new trunk every time it blossoms or unpacks a fresh leaf. The old trunk may be good enough, but the old trunk with fresh life poured into it till it rungs over and the drippings crystallise into verdure and flowers. The point in that illustration is that the life uses the trunk instead of the trunk being so rigid and gritty as to mew up the life, so that as soon as the life can get a little new influx and a little deepening of its current it is bound to break its way out into liberty and leaves. In this second sense, then, Christ is our Emancipator. The entrance of His Spirit into us enlarges us to the rending of the old shackles of indurated opinion that we have either put upon ourselves or had put on us, and so lets us out into a wider reach of truth and into a broader sweep of prospect. That is all perfectly illustrated in the case of Saul on his way to becoming Paul. Saul was a tough old fossilised Jew. His theological views, that at one time we may suppose to have been young and tender and plastic, had chilled and dried and hardened into so much doctrinal petrifaction. Anything like new, enlarged, and progressive thought we may suppose to have been arrested. The convictions he had already acquired lay in the way of more acquisitions of the same kind. His mind bounded back as from a wall, from the casing of opinion in which during all those years he had been slowly immuring himself. He was in that particular like a river which will sometimes dam its own flow by the very material which it has itself deposited. Worm and cocoon! And yet when once the power of Christ had come upon him, and the Spirit of Christ, who is the Truth, had become a swelling reservoir within him, the embankment gave way, and the new accumulation from out the sky broke forth over wide areas of new theological fertility; the inward Divine replenishment, like the deepened currents of vegetable sap in the spring, punctured the bark and let itself out all over Paul in fresh theological buds. And wherever there is a fresh increment of the Christ-Spirit made over to a Christian thinker, that is to be counted on as a certain issue. (C. H. Parkhurst, D. D.)

Sincerity misguided

It is often said it is no matter what a man believes if he is only sincere. This is true of all minor truths, and false of all truths whose nature it is to fashion a mans life. It will make no difference in a mans harvest whether he think turnips have more saccharine matter than potatoes, whether corn is better than wheat. But let the man sincerely believe that seed planted without ploughing is as good as with, that January is as favourable for seed sowing as April, and that cockle seed will produce as good a harvest as wheat, and will it make no difference? A child might as well think he could reverse that ponderous marine engine which night and day, in calm and storm, ploughs its way across the deep, by sincerely taking hold of the paddle wheel, as a man might think he could reverse the action of the elements of Gods moral government through a misguided sincerity. They will roll over such a one, and whelm him in endless ruin. (H. W. Beecher.)

Compelled them to blaspheme.

Compulsory blasphemy

You, perhaps, know what that means--compel them to blaspheme. The Roman way of doing it was to say, Curse Christ. Often and often did the Roman Emperor command the martyrs to curse Christ, and you remember Polycarps answer--How can I curse Him? Sixty years have I known Him; He never did me a displeasure, and I cannot and I will not curse Him. Then the whip was applied, or the hand was held over burning coals, or the flesh was pinched with hot irons, and then the question was put again--Will you curse Christ now? Paul says that he, though probably using milder means, compelled the professor of Christs faith to blaspheme. And there may be some such here--the husband who persecutes his wife for Christs sake; the father who charges his child, upon his obedience, never to go to the sanctuary of the Lord again; the master who plagues his servant, mocks and jeers, and can never be content, except when he is saying hard things against him. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_26:9. Commences the second part of Paul’s apology. Paul would not despair of converting his countrymen from doubt to belief, since he himself had undergone a similar mental revolution, and had become a believer in, and a preacher of, the resurrection of Jesus. I ought.—Paul acted from what he deemed a sense of duty when he “persecuted the Church of God” (1Co_15:9), which may be taken as his interpretation of the clause, doing many things “contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Act_26:10. The saints.—This designation, intelligible only to Christians (see Act_9:13), Paul did not use when addressing the Jews, but now employs before Agrippa, perhaps because he deemed caution no longer necessary, and wished both to put honour on the followers of the Nazarene and to aggravate his own guilt (compare Birk’s Horæ Apostolicæ vii. viii.). The disciples of the Crucified were “the ‘holy ones of God’s people, Israel—what the Chasidim, or ‘devout ones’ (the ‘Assideans’ of 1Ma_7:13; 2Ma_14:6), had been in an earlier generation” (Plumptre). I gave my voice—lit., I cast my voting stone, calculum adjeci, against them.—Whether this should be taken literally, as signifying that Paul actually voted against the Christians (Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Plumptre), or figuratively (Bengel, Kuinoel, De Wette, Meyer, Lechler, Zockler, Hackett, Stier), that he assented to their condemnation, is debated. If the former interpretation be the right one, then the probability is that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrim, and over thirty years of age, as well as married and the father of a family. As, however, Paul’s age at the time of Stephen’s murder is uncertain, and as Scripture does not mention either wife or child of the apostle (but see Hints on Act_26:10), it is held by others that the latter interpretation should be preferred.

Act_26:11. I … compelled them.—Lit., I was compelling them—i.e., I strove to make them—blaspheme.—It does not follow that he succeeded, though “that among the many who suffered this violence, every one preserved his fidelity, it would be unreasonable to affirm” (Hackett). Pliny (Ep., x. 97) speaks of ordering the Bithynian Christians—maledicere Christo—but adds that it could not be done—quorum nihil cogi posse dicuntur qui sunt revera Christiani. Strange cities were foreign cities, outside of Palestine, like Damascus.

Act_26:12. Whereupon.—Lit., in which (persecutions) being engaged. Compare Act_24:18.

Act_26:13. At midday.—A note, omitted in Luke’s narration (Act_9:3) but corresponding to Paul’s previous statement “about noon” (Act_22:6). A light from heaven.—As in Act_9:3; spoken of as great in Act_22:6, to which corresponds the next clause, above the brightness of the sun.—This light is now said to have encompassed, not Paul alone (Act_9:3; Act_22:6), but his companions as well

Act_26:14. Remarks that these companions, as well as the apostle, were all struck to the ground in terror, though they appear to have recovered from their fright earlier than he (Act_9:7). The voice which Paul heard, Luke says they also heard (Act_9:7), though Paul affirms they heard it not (Act_22:9), as conversely Luke reports they saw no man (Act_9:7), while Paul asserts they beheld the light (Act_20:9). On these supposed contradictions see Act_9:7, and Act_22:6, and compare Dan_10:7; 3Ma_6:18, and Joh_12:29, which all seem to imply that heavenly voices and visions are understood and seen only by those for whom they are intended. Paul mentioned that the voice spoke to him in the Hebrew tongue, because he was then himself speaking in Greek, not in Hebrew, as in 22 (see Hints on Act_26:14). It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.—Or, goads. The meaning was that his resistance to the cause and will of Christ would be foolish and unavailing, as well as painful to himself. The ox-goad, six or eight feet long, and pointed with iron, was held by the Oriental ploughman in one hand, while the other grasped the one-handled plough. The refractory animal, when pierced or pricked with the iron-pointed goad, would, of course, kick against it. Examples of this proverb have been produced from Greek and Latin writers (see Æschylus, Agam., 1624: πρὸς κέντρα μὴ λάκτιζε; and Terence, Phormio, I. ii. 27: “Nam quæ inscitia est advorsum stimulum oalces”).

Act_26:16. Which thou halt seen.—According to the best authorities this should be wherein thou hast seen Me.

Act_26:18. To turn them should be that they may turn from darkness to light, the verb being intransitive (see Act_26:20; Act_14:15).

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_26:9-18

Paul’s Rehearsal of An Old Story; or, the Secret of his Conversion Explained

I. The character of his pre-Christian life.—Briefly, one of opposition to the name of Jesus, and to all who bore it.

1. Conscientious. Paul distinctly claimed that at that time he was as truly conscientious as he had been since his conversion. He imagined, ignorantly of course (1Ti_1:13), that in so opposing, hindering, persecuting, and destroying Christians, he was actually doing God service. He did not avow that, though acting, as he believed, from conscientious motives, he was thereby free from guilt; otherwise he could not have written, “Howbeit I obtained mercy.” Paul had by this time arrived at the perception of this fundamental principle in morals, that while man is responsible for acting in accordance with conscience, he is no less accountable for the education and enlightenment of his conscience. It is only conscience enlightened by the word of God which is an absolutely safe guide for the Christian.

2. Active. His hostility towards the name of Jesus and its bearers was not confined to the region of sentiment and feeling, but was no sooner formed than translated into word and deed. Having concluded in the court of conscience that he ought to harry out the Christians from Jerusalem and Judæa, and hunt them, if that were possible, from off the face of the earth, he adopted every method in his power to give effect to his ferocious purpose. Armed with authority from the chief priests, he became a furious inquisitor, persecutor, and oppressor—

(1) shutting up the saints in prison wherever and whenever they fell into his clutches;

(2) voting against them when they were put to death, either actually, as a member of the Sanhedrim, or metaphorically, by mentally assenting to their condemnation, thus constituting himself participem criminis, or (to use a Scottish law phrase) “art and part,” a sharer in the wickedness of shedding their innocent blood;

(3) punishing them in every synagogue in which they were found, in order to make them blaspheme that holy name wherewith they were called (Jas_2:7); and even

(4) following them to strange cities, such as Damascus, in order to arrest them and fetch them, bound, to Jerusalem.

3. Passionate. Nor was it merely as an unpleasant task that this ferocious and bloody occupation was undertaken and carried through by him, but as a business into which he had enlisted all the energy and enthusiasm of his soul, and from which he derived the most intoxicating and fiendish delight. He was mad exceedingly, and, as Luke reports, breathed out threatenings and slaughter against them.

4. Extensive. His efforts were not restricted to Jerusalem or Judæa, but passed beyond the limits of the Holy Land, even to foreign cities. From Paul’s description of his early career we can see that Luke’s account (Act_9:1-18) is in no degree exaggerated, while Agrippa might have inferred, had he wished, that something extraordinary must have happened to produce the change in Paul which he and all men beheld—a something hardly less supernatural than that which Paul next proceeded to relate—viz., the appearance to him of the risen Christ.

II. The story of his miraculous conversion—

1. The place where it occurred. In the vicinity of that very Damascus to which he had been journeying on the unhallowed errand just described. Paul was not likely to forget a spot so sacred as that on which he passed so suddenly, completely, and for ever from the darkness of sin and Satan into God’s own marvellous light. It can hardly be supposed that the Eunuch would ever cease to remember the desert road to Gaza, where he met with Philip the evangelist and found the key to the Bible in the person of the Saviour (Act_8:26); or that Lydia would ever become unmindful of the place of prayer by the river side in Philippi, where the Lord opened her heart to attend unto the things that were spoken by Paul (Act_16:13). 2 The time when it happened. “At mid-day, O king.” This also was engraven ineffaceably on the tablets of his memory, as was the tenth hour on the memory of Andrew (Joh_1:39). Many who have undergone the same spiritual change as Paul, the change of conversion, find it difficult to state precisely the moment when the blinding scales of ignorance and unbelief fell from their eyes, and the light of saving truth flashed in upon their understandings. But no such uncertainty could exist with Paul, any more than with the just named Lydia (Act_16:14), or with the Philippian gaoler (Act_16:34).

3. The instrumentality that effected it. “A light from heaven.”

(1) That this was no mere flash of lightning or other natural phenomenon, but a supernatural illumination, is proved by four things: its splendour, which was above the brightness of the sun; its time, which was mid-day, when the sun is at its brightest, and lightning, should it occur then, is scarcely visible; its locality, which was not the broad expanse of the firmament, but the vicinity of the apostle and his companions—the light shone round about them; its effect—it hurled the apostle and his companions to the ground, probably threw them from the beasts on which they rode, filling the apostle’s companions with terror, and striking the apostle himself with blindness (Act_9:7-8), though the apostle does not now deem it necessary to introduce these details into his speech.

(2) That the light was the glory nimbus of the exalted Saviour is apparent from the circumstances next narrated by Paul—that he heard a voice issuing from it which he afterwards recognised to be that of Jesus, whom he had been persecuting, and that he carried on a conversation with that same Jesus, whose glorified form he discerned in the midst of the light.

4. The power that wrought it. This was not the light, which was simply the radiant symbol of Jesus presence, or the alarm into which he, no less than his companions, had been thrown, since, though fear may awaken conviction, it cannot convert; but the grace of Him who had, in this mysterious fashion, appeared to him on the way. “It is the Spirit (of Christ) that quickeneth” (Joh_6:63). Souls are born again, “not of flesh or of blood, or by the will of man, but by the power of God” (Joh_1:13).

5. The process by which it was completed. The conversation carried on by Christ with his soul.

(1) The double form of address—“Saul! Saul!”—indicative of earnestness; the pathetic interrogation—“Why persecutest thou Me?”; and the solemn declaration, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads”;—made it evident that he was standing before One who not only knew his name and the details of his past career, but was acquainted with the interior history of his soul, and understood the moods of mind through which he had been passing on the road to Damascus, and probably ever since he had witnessed the trial and execution of Stephen. If Paul on that day remembered the words of Scripture at all, it is far from unlikely that these were the words which instinctively leapt into his thoughts: “O Lord, Thou hast searched me and known me.…” (Psa_139:1-12).

(2) The answer returned by Christ to his question, “Who art Thou, Lord?”—“I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest”—must have discovered to his mind three things of which he had been previously unaware, and up to that moment had presumably not imagined could be true: that Jesus of Nazareth was no longer dead, but risen, as the Christians affirmed, and was the Messiah; that his conception of himself and his past career as highly pleasing to God was fundamentally and totally wrong; and that in persecuting the followers of the Way he was practically fighting against God. All which must have humbled him in the dust of penitence and self-abasement.

(3) The command of Jesus that he should rise, stand upon his feet, and proceed upon a different mission—not against, but for, the cause he had been seeking to destroy—could not fail to inspire within him hopes of pardon and acceptance, notwithstanding his heinous wickedness and sin. When Paul found that Jesus did not strike him into death, confound him with terrors, or declare against him bitter and relentless enmity, what could he conclude but that Jesus was willing to forgive the past? If doubt lingered in his soul, it must have been for ever banished when Christ proceeded to talk about employing him as a preacher of the faith?

III. The tenor of his apostolical commission.—This was—

1. Based upon the fact that Christ had now appeared to him, as to all the other apostolic persons. Paul afterwards relied on this as a sufficient guarantee of his apostolical authority (1Co_9:1; 1Co_15:8).

2. Defined as a witness-bearing about the things in which Christ both had appeared and would appear to him. In conformity with this Paul constantly claimed that his gospel had not been derived indirectly from man, but had been communicated to him directly by Christ (Gal_1:12).

3. Directed to the Gentiles—not exclusively, but ultimately and chiefly. It is not in accordance with fact that Paul originally did not contemplate a Gentile mission (Baur, Hausrath), but was only reluctantly compelled by circumstances to adopt this, because of the refusal of his countrymen, the Jews, to hear the gospel (Act_13:47). That Paul did not start at once with a Gentile mission constituted no proof that that formed not his intention from the first, or that he was not aware of his Divine designation for such an enterprise, but only attested his wisdom in

(1) waiting for heavenly leading to open up his path, and

(2) seeking a point of connection for himself and his gospel with the heathen, through the synagogues, in which these mingled as proselytes with the Jews. Besides, had Paul not commenced with the Jews he would have both given to his hearers an erroneous impression of his gospel, which was no entirely new religion, but the necessary, because Divinely arranged, development of the old faith of the Hebrews, and would have lacked a congenial soil for it to fix its first roots in.

4. Designed for the salvation of the heathen: by

(1) opening their eyes—i.e., imparting to them spiritual illumination (Luk_1:79; Eph_1:18);

(2) turning them, as the result of such enlightenment, from darkness unto light (Eph_5:11; Col_1:13; 1Pe_2:9), and from the power of Satan unto God (Eph_2:2; Rom_16:20);

(3) bestowing on them forgiveness—i.e., remission of sins (Rom_3:25); and

(4) securing for them an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ (Act_20:22; Eph_1:11; Eph_1:14; Eph_1:18; Col_1:12; 1Pe_1:4). “An excellent description of St. Paul’s commission to preach, by the five ends or effects of it, viz., conversion, faith, remission of sins, sanctification, salvation” (Trapp).

5. Accompanied by a promise of protection against the machinations of both Jews and Gentiles, a promise which his past history and present position showed had been marvellously fulfilled.

Learn—

1. That to follow conscience (unless it is enlightened) is no guarantee that one will not commit sin and incur guilt.

2. That men have justified the greatest wickedness by appealing to the dictates of conscience.

3. That men’s judgments on their characters and lives differ greatly according to the standpoints from which they are pronounced.

4. That Divine grace can change the worst of sinners.

5. That nothing transpiring on earth is or can be hid from the eyes of Jesus Christ (Heb_4:13; Rev_1:14).

6. That when Christ appoints a messenger He gives him a message.

7. That the grand end of the ministry is the salvation of them that hear (1Co_1:21; 1Ti_4:16).

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_26:9. Paul’s Mistaken Thoughts.

I. That Jesus of Nazareth was an imposter.—Not a few regard Christ in this light still. Many consider Him to have been a mere man, and Divine in no sense, in which others may not also be Divine.

II. That the followers of Jesus should be persecuted and put to death.—This opinion is not yet extinct. Many who would tolerate Christianity hold that other religions should be put down and their professors suppressed by force. To punish men for their religious views, besides being a blunder, is a sin.

III. That the favour of Heaven could be secured only by them who obeyed the law, and observed the ritual, of Moses.—Thousands still hold that none can be saved outside of their sect, and thousands more that salvation is possible only to them who seek it through the works of the law—both of which opinions are delusions.

IV. That the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction.—So numerous unbelievers still hold. But as Paul was undeceived on this point, so will they eventually be.

Act_26:10. Was Paul a Member of the Sanhedrim?—The answer to this question largely turns on the other, Was Paul married? That he was, Luther and the Reformers generally inferred from 1Co_7:8 : “But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them, if they abide even as I.” “That the unmarried are widowers is clear from this, that Paul has already spoken to the unmarried (Act_26:1), and married (Act_26:7), and now comes to the widowed (Act_26:8). Accordingly, the apostle appears to reckon himself in the category of widowers, and already Luther’s sound judgment has discerned that directions concerning the married life, such as are given immediately before Act_26:8, are suitable only in the mouth of a man who is, or was, married, and who knows from his own experience that of which he speaks. An impartial reading of 1Co_6:12; 1Co_7:10, cannot but confirm this judgment of Luther’s; and many other passages in the Pauline letters, as, e.g., 1Th_2:7; 1Th_5:4; 1Co_3:2; 1Co_4:15; 1Co_7:14, manifest so deep a feeling for the family life, and so rich experiences out of the same, that this impression is only confirmed” (Hausrath, Der Apostel Paulus, p. 47).

Act_26:13. Memorable Moments.—Paul never forgot the hour when the glorified Redeemer first appeared to him, shattered with a glance and a word the entire superstructure of his past life, and transformed him into a new man.

I. Such moments occur in the lives of men.—Such are those, e.g., in which Christ, through His word and by His Spirit, for the first time looks in upon a soul, awakening within it a sense of sin, shining into it with His gracious countenance, translating it out of darkness into light, and turning it from Satan to serve the living and true God.

II. Such moments should not be forgotten.—Should be remembered by men rather—

1. For the eternal praise of the Lord whose grace has been so signally displayed in them.

2. For the continual instruction of themselves, reminding them of the grace they have received and the gratitude they should feel.

3. For a permanent memorial to the world, to rebuke them in their sins and call them to the way of salvation.

Act_26:14-15. Did Christ speak Hebrew?—Compare Christ’s words to Paul in Act_9:4-5. That on this occasion He did, Paul distinctly states. Whether this was Christ’s language on earth is debated. The probability is that He could use both Greek and Hebrew. Brought up, as He had been, in a Jewish household, it is hardly supposable that He could not think, read, write, and speak, in Hebrew. It is even likely that when He taught in the synagogues, the language used by Him was Hebrew. Occasionally when working miracles, as the Gospel records show, He used Aramaic terms, such as “Talitha cumi,” “Ephatha”; while on the cross He cried: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani.” At the same time, as Greek was at this period commonly spoken in all those countries which were washed by the Mediterranean waters, it is just as reasonable to conjecture that Christ could speak Greek. Whether He employed this tongue in ordinary intercourse with His countrymen will most likely never be determined. Nor is it of much consequence. The instance here given of Christ speaking from heaven to a mortal is a solitary one, and not much can be founded on it in the way of argument for one conclusion or another. Some think that John’s revelations were given to him in Hebrew. But this is, of course, conjectural.

Act_26:16-18. True Ministerial Ordination.—Illustrated in the case of Paul.

I. Proceeds from Christ.—Prayer and the imposition of hands, whether by bishop or presbytery, does not make an unconverted man a minister of Jesus Christ.

II. Appoints to personal service.—Not to temporal or ecclesiastical dignities, or even to wealth and comfort, but to lowly labour in witness-bearing for Jesus Christ.

III. Guarantees spiritual illumination.—When Christ ordains a man to be His witness He reveals Himself to that man’s soul, not only at the beginning, and as a necessary condition of being ordained as a minister, but from time to time, as his work of witness-bearing requires.

IV. Promises adequate protection.—As Christ shielded Paul from his adversaries, so can and will He guard His faithful minister and witness so long as his service is required.

V. Contemplates lofty aims.—

1. The enlightenment of souls—“to open their eyes.”

2. The conversion of sinners—“that they may turn from darkness to light.”

3. The bestowment of pardon—“that they may receive remission of sins.”

4. The preparation of those who are enlightened, converted, pardoned for glory—“that they may receive an inheritance among them that are sanctified.”

5. The implantation of faith—“through faith that is in Me.”

Act_26:18. The Way to The Inheritance.

I. No inheritance without sanctification.—(See Act_20:32, and compare Heb_12:14). “Follow holiness,” or, the sanctification without which “no man shall see the Lord.”

II. No sanctification without faith.—Since justification must precede, and justification is impossible without faith (Gal_2:16), while Christ can be made of God sanctification only to them who believe (1Co_1:30).

III. No faith without Christ.—I.e., without the crucified, risen, and glorified Christ, who alone is the proper, personal object of faith (Act_20:21; Col_2:7; 1Jn_3:23).

Faith in Christ.

I. The object of faith.—Christ: Christianity not merely a system of truths about God, nor a code of morality deducible from these, but the affiance of the whole spirit fixed upon the redeeming, revealing Christ.

II. The nature and the essence of the act of faith.—Faith is not merely the assent of the understanding to certain truths, or the persuasion of the reality of unseen things; it is not even merely the confident expectation of future good; it is the personal relation of him that believes to the living person its object; in other words, faith is trust.

III. The power of faith.—

1. We are saved—i.e., justified and sanctified—by faith. But

2. The power that saves comes, not from the faith, but from the Christ in whom faith trusts. It is Christ’s blood, Christ’s sacrifice, Christ’s life, Christ’s intercession, that saves. Faith is the channel through which the Divine fulness flows over into the soul’s emptiness.

IV. The guilt and criminality of unbelief.—

1. Because, assuming that God is to be the author of salvation, no other way can be conceived in which the Divine fulness should pass over into the soul than that of receiving what God has provided.

2. Because the difficulties in the way of exercising faith are not intellectual, but moral, and lie, not in the region of the understanding, but in that of the heart.

3. Because the fact that a man will not believe proves his nature to be turned or turning away from, and setting itself in rebellion against, God’s love.—Alexander Maclaren, D.D.

A Sermon on Conversion.

I. How it is effected.—

1. By the grace of God.

2. Through the instrumentality of the Word.

3. With the active concurrence of the human will.

II. What it implies.—A turning.

1. From darkness to light.

2. From the power of Satan unto God.

III. What it secures.—

1. Remission of sins.

2. Inheritance among the sanctified.

“Faith that is in Me.” Saving Faith is Faith in Christ.—

1. It is faith in Christ as a Person. There is assent to a proposition, an acknowledgment of its truth. There is reliance on a Person as able and willing to do what He has undertaken. Saving faith is such a belief of the inspired testimony concerning the Person as leads to sincere trust in Him for salvation.

2. It is faith in Christ as a Person who has accomplished a work. Christ has not only delivered a system of theological and ethical doctrines. He has done something. It is what He has done—His sufferings and death—that constitutes Him the proper object of saving faith. It contemplates Him, not as a Teacher, but as a Saviour.

3. It is faith in Christ as a Person who has accomplished a work which has a Godward aspect. True it is that His work has a manward aspect—exercises a moral influence on men, as drawing them to God. But it has also a Godward aspect—has a legal value, as satisfying the claims of the Divine government. Take away the latter, and you remove the basis of the former.

4. It is faith in Christ as a Person who, after having accomplished by His death a work which has a Godward aspect, is now alive. There may be a dead faith in a dead Saviour. There may be a dead faith in a living Saviour. There ought to be a living faith in a living Saviour.—G. Brooks.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 26:9. Ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ, I thought with myself, I seemed to myself bound) even above others.—δεῖν, that I ought) So great is the power of the conscience even when in error.—πολλὰ ἐναντία, many things contrary) not as others, who neither treat with respect, nor yet injure (Christians). These contrary things the language of Paul enumerates with a remarkable increase of force.—πρᾶξαι) ἐποίησα, presently. The words differ, as we observe elsewhere.[143]

[143] πράσσειν, agere; ποιεῖν, facere. Πρᾶσσειν expresses the general state of the conduct and practice: Ποιεῖν, the particular acts.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_26:9-10. In consequence of this unbelief (μὲν οὖν), I myself was once a decided opponent of the name of Jesus.

ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ] mihi ipsi videbar. See examples in Wetstein. The view of Erasmus, Calovius, de Dieu, and Vater, who connect ἐμαυτῷ with δεῖν, is to be rejected; for δεῖν with the dative, although not without example in classical writers (Xen. Mem iii. 3. 10, Anab. iii. 4. 35, Oecon. vii. 20; see Kühner, § 551, note 5; Schoem. ad Is. p. 380), is foreign to the N.T. ἐμαυτῷ has the emphasis of his own personal opinion: I had the self-delusion, that I ought to exert myself. Tanta vis errantis conscientiae, Bengel.

πρὸς τὸ ὄνομα] in reference to the name, namely, in order to suppress the confession and invocation of it. Observe how Paul uses Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωρ. according to his standpoint as Saul.

ὅ] which πολλὰ ἐναντία πρᾶξαι I also actually did. Comp. Gal_2:10. This is then more particularly set forth by καὶ (and indeed) πολλοὺς κ.τ.λ. Mark the difference between πράσσειν and ποιεῖν; see on Joh_3:20.

τῶν ἁγίων] spoken from the Christian standpoint of the apostle, with grief. The ἐγώ also has painful emphasis.

ἀναιρ. τε αὐτ. κατήνεγκα ψῆφον] and when they were put to death (when people were on the point of executing them) I have given vote (thereto), calculum adjeci, i.e. I have assented, συνευδόκησα, Act_22:20. The plural ἀναιρ. αὐτ. is not, with Grotius, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred merely to Stephen, but also to other unknown martyrs, who met their death in the persecution which began with the killing of Stephen. Comp. Act_8:1, Act_9:1. Elsner and Kypke make the genitive dependent on κατήνεγκα, and in that, case take κατα- in a hostile reference (comp. καταψηφίζειν). Harsh, and without precedent in linguistic usage; ἀναιρ. αὐτ. is the genitive absolute, and κατήν. is conceived with a local reference, according to the original conception of the ψῆφος (the voting-stone), which the voter deposits in the urn. Classical authors make use of the simple φέρειν ψῆφον (Plat. Legg. vi. p. 766 B, p. 767 D, and frequently), also of διαφέρειν, or ἐπιφέρ., or ἀναφέρ., or ἐκφέρ. ψ. But to καταφέρειν in our passage corresponds the classical τιθέναι ψῆφον (Plat. Tim. p. 51 D; Eur. Or. 754; Dem. 362. 6, and frequently).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 26:9 . ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν : the words may be taken as simply resuming the narrative of the Apostle’s life which he had commenced in Act 26:4-5 , the three succeeding verses forming a parenthesis, or as an answer to the question of Act 26:8 , the real antithesis to μὲν οὖν , Act 26:9 , and the narrative, Act 26:9-11 , being found in Act 26:12 and what follows. On μὲν οὖν see Rendall, Acts , Appendix, p. 163, and also Page on Act 2:41 , Acts , pp. 94, 95; see also critical note above. ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ : mihi ipsi videbar ; so in classical Greek. If with Weiss, Wendt, Bethge we lay stress on ἐμαυ ., the Apostle explains the fact that this obligation was his own wilful self-delusion. In classical Greek instead of the impersonal construction we have frequently the personal construction with the infinitive as here, cf. 2Co 10:9 only in Luke and Paul, indication of literary style, Viteau, Le Grec du N.T. , p. 152 (1893). τὸ ὄνομα Ἰ . τοῦ Ν ., see on Act 4:10 ; Act 4:12 . ἐναντία πρᾶξαι , cf. Act 28:17 , and also 1Th 2:15 , Tit 2:8 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(See on Act 9:1, &c.; and compare Act 22:4, &c.)

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

9. And I truly. If Paul had not spoken more things than those which Luke hath hitherto recited, his speech had not hanged well together. Whence we prove that which was said before, that after that he had spoken of the covenant of God, he intreated of the grace and office of Christ, as the matter required. And he repeateth the history of his conversion for this cause, not only that he may remove from himself all suspicion of lightness, but that he may testify that God had called him, and that he was even enforced by a commandment coming from heaven. For, seeing that he was, contrary to his expectation, suddenly made a sheep of a wolf, such a violent change is of no small importance to purchase credit to his doctrine.

Therefore, he amplifieth that his heat and vehement desire which he had to punish the members of Christ, and also that stubbornness whereunto he was wholly given over. If he had been nousled [brought] up in the faith of Christ from his youth, or if he had been taught by some man, he should have embraced it willingly and without resistance, he himself should have been sure of his calling, but it should not have been so well known to others. But now, seeing that being inflamed with obstinate and immoderate fury, being moved with no occasion, neither persuaded by mortal man, he changeth his mind, it appeareth that he was tamed and brought under by the hand of God.

Therefore, this contrariety is of great weight, in that he saith that he was so puffed up with pride, that he thought he should get the victory of Christ, whereby he teacheth that he was nothing less than made a disciple of Christ through his own industry. The name of Jesus of Nazareth is taken in this place for the whole profession of the gospel, which Paul sought to extinguish, by making war ignorantly against God, as we may see.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(9) I verily thought with myself . . .—The words have a tone of considerate sympathy and hope. He himself had been led from unbelief to faith; he will not despair of a like transition for others, even for Agrippa. (Comp. 1Ti_1:12-17.) On the relation of this account of the Apostle’s conversion to previous narratives, see Notes on Act_9:1-20.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. contrary to the name] i.e. to the faith of Jesus Christ, into whose name believers were to be baptized. Cp. Act_5:41, note. “Name” is constantly used in O. T. as the equivalent of “Godhead,” and any Jew who heard the language of such a verse as this would understand that the Christians held Jesus to be a divine Being.

of Jesus of Nazareth] Whom we preach now as raised by God from the dead, and as the fulfiller of the promises made to the fathers.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I verily thought with myself,.... This seems to be a correction of himself, why he should wonder at their ignorance and unbelief, particularly with respect to Jesus being the Messiah, and his resurrection from the dead, and expostulate with them about it; when this was once his own case, it was the real sentiments of his mind, what in his conscience he believed to be right and just; namely,

that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth; to him himself, to his religion, to his Gospel, and ordinances, and people; by blaspheming his name, by denying him to be the Messiah, by condemning his religion as heresy, by disputing against his doctrines, and manner of worship, and by persecuting his followers.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

Ver. 9. Contrary to the name, &c.] Tertullian testifieth, that in the primitive Christians, nomen damnabatur, non crimen aut scelus: solum nomen innocuum, hominibus innocuis esse pro crimine, &c. And Tacitus to the same purpose, that when Nero had set the city on fire for his pleasure, and then fathered it upon the Christians, a great company of them were presently slaughtered, haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis, convicti: Not for any fault whereof they could be convicted, but out of a general hatred of their persons and religion.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I verily thought - I indeed μὲν men supposed. Paul here commences the account of his conversion, and states the evidence on which he judged that he was called of God to do what he had done. He begins by saying that it was not because he was originally disposed to be a Christian, but that he was violently and conscientiously opposed to Jesus of Nazareth, and had been converted when in the full career of opposition to him and his cause.

With myself - I thought to myself; or, I myself thought. He had before stated the hopes and expectations of his countrymen, Act 26:6-8. He now speaks of his own views and purposes. “For myself, I thought,” etc.

That I ought to do - That I was bound, or that it was a duty incumbent on me - δεῖν dein. “I thought that I owed it to my country, to my religion, and to my God, to oppose in every manner the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah.” We here see that Paul was conscientious, and that a man may be conscientious even when engaged in enormous wickedness. It is no evidence that one is right because he is conscientious. No small part of the crimes against human laws, and almost all the cruel persecutions against Christians, have been carried on under the plea of conscience. Paul here refers to his conscientiousness in persecution to show that it was no slight matter which could have changed his course. As he was governed in persecution by conscience, it could have been only by a force of demonstration, and by the urgency of conscience equally clear and strong, that he could ever have been induced to abandon this course and to become a friend of that Saviour whom he had thus persecuted.

Many things - As much as possible. He was not satisfied with a few things a few words, or purposes, or arguments; but he felt bound to do as much as possible to put down the new religion.

Contrary to the name ... - In opposition to Jesus himself, or to his claims to be the Messiah. The “name” is often used to denote the “person” himself, Act 3:6.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The name of Jesus; the religion which teacheth Christ is to be worshipped, and his name to be magnified.

Jesus of Nazareth; so they called our Saviour, of which see Act 22:8.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I verily. He gently excuses their unbelief by confessing that he himself had once felt like them, and insinuates the hope that they would change their minds as he had, and proceeds to give them good reason for doing so. Contrary to the Name (Gal_1:13; 1Ti_1:13) Jesus of Nazareth. By so designating the Lord of glory, he avows himself a member of "the sect of the Nazarenes". (see Act_2:22 Act_3:6 Act_4:10 Act_10:33, etc.)

Vers. 9, 10. Gradations in guilt.

The old notion that, as sin is committed against an infinite God, it must itself be an infinite evil, and that, therefore, all sins are equally heinous and offensive, is held no longer. Its logic is unsound, and our moral sense contradicts the theory. The fact is that the degrees of human guilt in the multitude of actions men perform, under a vast variety of conditions, are indefinitely numerous. Only the Omniscient can possibly discriminate and compute them. But there are some simple principles on which we may safely rely for our spiritual guidance. We judge

I THAT DELIBERATE AND DIRECT ANTAGONISM TO CHRIST IS THE GUILTIEST OF ALL POSITIONS. "Doing things contrary to Jesus Christ," when these things are done by an agent who knows what he does, reaches the very summit of iniquity. This is the condemnation, that light is come," etc. When men oppose themselves to Christian truth because" their deeds are evil," because "their craft is in danger," Because they hate the light which exposes their sin and robs them of their gains or their enjoyments, then they stand in the very front rank of criminality; they deliberately take up arms against their Maker; "They take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder," etc.; they say, "This is the Son; come, let us kill him," etc. Surely God will trouble these "with his sore displeasure". (Psa_2:5)

II THAT DELIBERATE NEUTRALITY IS A MOST SERIOUS SIN, When men refrain from taking an active part against the cause of Christ and his truth, doing "nothing contrary," etc., they shun the very worst possible thing. But when they attempt to take neutral ground, and either

(1) reject the claims which Christ makes on their personal subjection, (Mat_9:9 Mat_11:28, Mat_11:29, etc.) or

(2) refuse to render the help they can bring to his cause, (Mat_21:30 Mat_25:18, etc.) then they fall into great condemnation, and must "bear their iniquity". (see Mat_7:26, Mat_7:27; Luk_13:25-28; Jud_1:5:23)

III THAT IGNORANCE CHANGES THE CHARACTER AND MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE DEGREE OF GUILT. Clearly Paul was not so guilty in his acts of persecution as he would have been, had he not "thought that he ought to do many things contrary," etc. He himself tells us that this ignorance of his was a great mitigation of the sinfulness of his act. (1Ti_1:13) Our Lord also gave his own Divine sanction to this truth when suffering the pangs of crucifixion. (Luk_23:34)

1. Ignorance changes the character of the sin. What Paul was guilty of in those days was not the deliberate attempt to crush the work of a Divine Redeemer; he would have recoiled from so doing, had the act presented itself thus to his mind. His mistake, his condemnation, was that he had not fairly and impartially considered the claims of Jesus of Nazareth; that he had blindly assumed that his teachers were right, guiltily neglecting all the proofs which the Savior had given that he was the Messiah "that should come into the world.

2. It also greatly reduces its turpitude, not to have inquired as we should have done this is wrong and blameworthy. But it is not so serious an offence, in the sight of God or of man, as willfully and wantonly to conspire against the Lord, and to seek to positively hinder the coming of his kingdom. It may rightly comfort those who, like Paul, have to look hack on offences which they have committed, when they can say, with him,

verily thought," etc.; when it can be said to them, "Brethren, I vet that through ignorance ye did it". (Act_3:17)

IV THAT ONLY ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE EXONERATES FROM BLAME. It is conceivable that men may be so circumstanced that their ignorance is absolute, and therefore wholly faultless. In this case there is no guilt. But how seldom is it of this kind! Usually when we do "things contrary" to truth, righteousness, God, we might have known better if we had inquired more promptly or more purely. We may not excuse ourselves if we have kept out of our mind any light we might have admitted. We may apply this to

(1) the doctrines we are accepting;

(2) the leaders we are encouraging;

(3) the business we are conducting;

(4) the family we are training. C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I thought - When I was a Pharisee: that I ought to do many things - Which he now enumerates.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Paul’s earlier position toward Jesus:

v. 9. I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

v. 10. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem; and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

v. 11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Paul here makes a frank confession of his enmity toward Christ and his believers, in order to bring out all the more strikingly the grace he had received in his conversion. He himself in those days had been of the opinion, he had held firmly to the conviction: it was an obligation which was the result of his willful self-delusion that he must do much against, in opposition to, the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The name of Jesus was so hateful to him that he gave himself wholly to the persecution of those that professed belief in Christianity. In those days his zeal against Christ and the Church had not been one whit behind that of the entire family of Herod: he considered it his most important duty in life to prevent the confession of the name of Jesus, and to enforce this idea with persecution and slaughter. This he did in Jerusalem, being instrumental in shutting up many of the saints in prison, holding authority to that effect from the high priests. Note that Paul here deliberately calls those people saints whom he formerly had persecuted with such unquenchable hatred. And when the believers were put to death, he cast his vote in favor of the execution, either as a member of the Sanhedrin. as some think, or he spoke in favor of the measure, throwing all his persuasive abilities into the balance against the hated name. Neither was his bloodthirstiness satisfied with the executions which he succeeded in bringing about, but in all the synagogues he punished them often, being careful not to overlook a single one, and he forced them to blaspheme. not only to deny and renounce, but even to execrate Christ, in order to save their lives; he made the attempt again and again: and it is only too probable that he had success at least in some cases. His hatred finally drove him to extreme madness, to insanity, so far as the Christians were concerned, the very thought of the extension of the faith drove him wild with fury, and he continued his persecutions of them also into other cities outside of Jerusalem. He had good reasons, therefore, to describe himself as a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. 1Ti 1:13. His example is that of a man whom the enmity toward Christ will give no rest, neither by day nor by night, who feels compelled to hurt the course of the Gospel by every means at his disposal. Such people Christians must expect to meet in the performance of their duty, and the fact dare not cause them too much anxiety.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here the apostle frankly declares, That he was once as sharp and bitter an enemy to Christ, and to all that believed in him, as any one whatever; and thought himself bound in conscience to persecute all that owned him, and with threatenings and tortures compelled them to deny Christ; and being exceedingly fierce, he forced them to fly to heathen cities to escape his fury.

Where note, 1. That we ought to be upon very good and sure grounds, before we oppose and persecute any.

2. That some persecute others, and at the same time think they do well in so doing: I verily thought, says the apostle, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus. He spake as if his conscience would have troubled others, for that which was indeed their conscience.

Note, 3. That Paul, being a blasphemer himself, compelled the professors of the gospel to blaspheme. This he probably did two ways.

First, by his example; they imitated him in blaspheming, or speaking evil of the ways of Christ.

Or, secondly, by his cruelty: vexing them so in the professions of Christ, that some who were unsettled probably fell away, and blasphemed the name of Christ, which they had professed: He compelled them to blaspheme.

There is a compelling power and constraining force in example, especially in the example of persons in power and authority. Men sin with a kind of authority: Paul’s blasphemous example compelled others to blaspheme.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9-11. To still further illustrate his former standing among the Pharisees, he describes his original relation toward the cause of Christ. (9) " I thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, the Nazarene, (10) which I also did in Jerusalem. Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the high priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them. (11) And in all the synagogues I punished them often, compelling them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. " With such a record as this, there was no room to suspect him of any such bias as would render him an easy or a willing convert to Christ. On the contrary, it must have appeared to Agrippa, and the whole audience, most astonishing that such a change could take place. Their curiosity to know what produced the change must have been intense, and he proceeds to gratify it.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9–11. I verily thought with myself. Next, in order to show his zeal for Judaism, he describes his course as a persecutor. He was thoroughly conscientious then in opposing Christ. For his course as a persecutor, see 7:58; 9:1, 2; 22:4.

I gave my voice against them. “Vote,” in the Revision. This has been held to indicate that he was a member of the Sanhedrim. This would hardly be doubted were it not that tradition declares that the members of the Sanhedrim had to be married and fathers of a family. Hence, some have held that Paul was a member of some lesser court appointed by the Sanhedrim to try the Christians.

I punished them oft in every synagogue. “All the synagogues” (Revision). Scourging was a not uncommon punishment in the synagogue (Matt. 10:17; 23:34). Compelled them to blaspheme. Terrified them into denying Jesus. Even unto strange cities. Of these Damascus was one. That he was a terrible persecutor, “exceedingly mad,” raging, even fanatical cannot be doubted from his own account.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Now indeed

Paul uses this phrase to mark another shift in his defense. He is now beginning to describe how he formerly persecuted Jesus' people.

against the name of Jesus

The word "name" here stands for the teaching about the person. AT: "to stop people from teaching about Jesus" (See: Metonymy)

when they were killed, I cast my vote against them

The phrase "were killed" can be stated in active form. AT: "I voted in agreement with the other Jewish leaders to condemn believers to die" (See: Active or Passive)

I punished them many times

Possible meanings are 1) Paul punished some believers many times or 2) Paul punished many different believers.

translationWords

name

Jesus

Nazareth

Jerusalem

believe

prison

authority

chief priests

punish

synagogue

blasphemy

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

9. πρὸς τὸ ὄνομα, contrary to the name, i.e. to the faith of Jesus Christ, into whose name believers were to be baptized. Cf. Act 5:41, note. ‘Name’ is constantly used in O.T. as the equivalent of ‘Godhead,’ and any Jew who heard the language of such a verse as this would understand that the Christians held Jesus to be a Divine Being.

Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου, of Jesus of Nazareth, whom we proclaim now as having been raised from the dead, and as being the fulfiller of the promises which were made to our forefathers.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9.] Henceforward he passes to his own history,—how he once refused, like them, to believe in Jesus: and shews them both the process of his conversion, and the ministry with which he was entrusted to others.

μὲν οὖν, well then, resuming the character described vv. 4, 5.

10,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.