Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 23:1
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day.
Act 23:1-10. St Paul before the Sanhedrin. Disagreement between the Pharisees and Sadducees
1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council ] The verb is one which St Luke very frequently employs to note a speaker’s expression at the commencement of a speech, and it is one of those features in the Acts which shew us where the compiler has acted as editor to the narratives which he used. He very generally gives some word to indicate the gesture or look of the person who speaks. This verb is often rendered in A.V. “looking stedfastly” and that rendering the Rev. Ver. gives here.
Men and brethren ] Better, “Brethren.” See note on Act 1:16.
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day ] The pronoun “I” is emphatically inserted in the Original. It is as though the Apostle would say, ‘You see me before you as though I were an offender, but personally I feel myself innocent.’ The verb is one which in profane authors signifies ‘to discharge the duties of a citizen.’ St Paul implies by its use that he has been obedient to God’s laws, as a good citizen would be to the laws of his country. So far as being devoted to God’s service, his whole life up to the present moment had been of one piece, it was only that his conscience had been enlightened, and so his behaviour had changed. He had at first lived as a conscientious and observant Jew, his conscience now approved his conduct as a Christian.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And Paul, earnestly beholding – atenisas. Fixing his eyes intently on the council. The word denotes a fixed and earnest gazing; a close observation. See Luk 4:20. Compare the notes on Act 3:4. Paul would naturally look with a keen and attentive observation on the council. He was arraigned before them, and he would naturally observe the appearance, and endeavor to ascertain the character of his judges. Besides, it was by this council that he had been formerly commissioned to persecute the Christians, Act 9:1-2. He had not seen them since that commission was given. He would naturally, therefore, regard them with an attentive eye. The result shows, also, that he looked at them to see what was the character of the men there assembled, and what was the proportion of Pharisees and Sadducees, Act 23:6.
The council – Greek: the Sanhedrin, Act 22:30. It was the great council, composed of seventy elders, to whom was entrusted the affairs of the nation. See the notes on Mat 1:4.
Men and brethren – Greek: Men, brethren; the usual form of beginning an address among the Jews. See Act 2:29. He addressed them still as his brethren.
I have lived in all good conscience – I have conducted myself so as to maintain a good conscience. I have done what I believed to be right. This was a bold declaration, after the tumult, and charges, and accusations of the previous day Acts 22; and yet it was strictly true. His persecutions of the Christians had been conducted conscientiously, Act 26:9, I verily thought with myself, says he, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Of his conscientiousness and fidelity in their service they could bear witness. Of his conscientiousness since, he could make a similar declaration. He doubtless meant to say that as he had been conscientious in persecution, so he had been in his conversion and in his subsequent course. And as they knew that his former life had been with a good conscience, they ought to presume that he had maintained the same character still. This was a remarkably bold appeal to be made by an accused man, and it shows the strong consciousness which Paul had of his innocence. What would have been the drift of his discourse in proving this we can only Conjecture. He was interrupted Act 23:2; but there can be no doubt that he would have pursued such a course of argument as would tend to establish his innocence.
Before God – Greek: to God – to Theo. He had lived to God, or with reference to his commands, so as to keep a conscience pure in his sight. The same principle of conduct he states more at length in Act 24:16; And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.
Until this day – Including the time before his conversion to Christianity, and after. In both conditions he was conscientious; in one, conscientious in persecution and error, though he deemed it to be right; in the other, conscientious in the truth. The mere fact that a man is conscientious does not prove that he is right or innocent. See the note on Joh 16:2.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 23:1-11
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren.
Paul before the council
1. The history of apostolic missions is finished; but before the parchment is rolled up, the line of one life is carried a few stages farther that we may see the promise fulfilled, Lo, I am with you alway, etc. We learn here how the Lord reigneth; how He makes effectual the command, Touch not Mine anointed. When we see the waves rising, we cry like Peter as if all was lost. Here the Lord, in mingled reproof and encouragement, would seem to say, Oh, thou of little faith, etc.
2. The Sanhedrin had assembled, and Paul, led in, eyed the assembly. If there be courage in the heart it finds an expressive outlet by the eye. Cowards cannot stand a brave mans look, nor lions. In Pauls case a good conscience and a strong faith added power to his look.
3. Paul did not wait till a charge was preferred, for he was not on his trial. He is sent by the Roman authorities in order that his case may be investigated by experts for the guidance of the governor. So Paul was the first to speak.
4. The apostle had an intelligent object in view when he said, Brother men. He saw those who had been his fellow students, and even juniors, and had done nothing to forfeit his position as their colleague.
I. The high priest insulting Paul.
1. As soon as Paul had begun to speak Ananias abruptly ordered the officers to smite him on the mouth, which reveals the extreme corruption and degradation of Jewish society. The chief magistrate perpetuates an act of ruffianism from his bench. In rejecting the Messiah the hierarchy were given over to a reprobate mind.
2. We have here a general law. When a sinner accepts Christ there is an immediate elevation of the moral sense. He becomes a new creature. But the converse holds good. When Christ comes near to any mind and is rejected the last state of the rejecter is worse than the first. Those who waste privileges and quench convictions sink lower than those who never enjoyed them.
II. Paul answering the high priest. The pungency of the apostles reproof needs no other justification than the one he gave. Luther was wont to launch such thunderbolts, and great and earnest men in all ages have brought their unjust judges suddenly to the bar. Ananias seems to have been struck dumb, and some courtiers or aspirants for favour endeavoured to shield their astonished patron by flinging his official dignity over the ermined culprit whose conduct they dare not excuse. For Paul there is no need for apology. He had cause to be angry, and in his apology made clear an important distinction between the office and the man. He respects the priesthood while he denounces the criminal. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
Paul before the council
1. The scene is shifted from a torture chamber to a court of justice, from heathens to Hebrews, from soldiers to ecclesiastics, from Roman tyrants to the missionarys schoolmates and countrymen; but the change only subjects him to ruder insults and more deadly perils.
2. Bad mens impatience of real goodness is not uncommon. The prisoner looked straight into the faces of these councillors. If they had expected a criminals frightened, wandering eye, they were disappointed. With the swiftness of memory, and possibly for a moment with its tenderness too, some of them thought, Why, this is the same Saul we used to know. Then the man before the council, as they might have anticipated, without exordium and with easy self-possession, assured them that since he had met them he had lived in all good conscience before God. Instantly, the gentle offices of memory ceased. The present arose. Smite him on the mouth, was the high priests command. To this mad bull Pauls good conscience was the red rag. Just so was it that Davids innocence wrought upon King Saul, the quietness of the Prince of Orange upon Alva, and Jesus upon this very Sanhedrin.
3. Yet in such antagonism goodness proves its power. Meekness is quite consistent with self-respect. The exposure of a sham is benevolent and just. To resent and defeat a wrong often becomes the plainest duty. Paul did his duty here. The judge is silenced by the prisoner, and during the approaching Jewish war he is murdered by assassins–God smites the whited wall.
4. But Paul will not have it supposed that in mere anger he had been betrayed into disrespect toward Gods high priest. I wist not that he was high priest, said he composedly, Further effort in behalf of the high priest nobody attempts. In the swift hours which make history such rubbish as Ananias is soon put out of the way.
5. Then one learns how a man with a good conscience may be served by his wits. Pauls had not been wasted by disuse, dulled by self-indulgence, nor worn out by his sufferings. The irony which he had just used so effectively against Ananias becomes almost mirthful in its shrewdness, as he now disposes of the other councillors. Well Paul knew how cordial were the contentions of two chief parties in Jerusalem. Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question, cried Paul. Then followed the conflagration. How comical it must have seemed as these high councillors flew at one another! For more than half the court what a meritorious person had the accused suddenly become! Especially would Paul appreciate the scribes which were of the Pharisees part. To one so familiar with the rapacity and heartlessness of their partisanship, whose own strategy had accomplished this marvellous change of front, the lofty air, the love of truth, the conscientiousness, the fear of fighting against God, must have been ludicrous. Nor is the solemnity of the scene enhanced by the sudden reappearance of Lysias and his soldiers. Shall the rulers of the people of God be set to rights by the worshippers of Mars?
6. As, however, the earnest missionary goes back to the castle, his smiles would quickly fade at the sad contrast between this fanaticism and religion. Zealots are not always saints. The high priest and Pharisees and Sadducees were capable of dying for their shibboleth. And, though our bigotry be of a milder sort, we need Hot despise a warning. The best time to kill thistles is when they are sprouting. We furnish a climate for them as well as Jews, but it is but poor soil in which Calvinism or Episcopacy or Arminianism thrives more than godliness. How does charity thrive? There is the question for all sects and for all ages.
7. But there are times when moralising must wait. Lifes problems and contests are too vast; our weakness yields under them. What we require is not authority, but tenderness. Such an hour had arrived for this weary missionary. Yesterday and today bad been even full of perils and excitements. The man is too weary to sleep. Who is there to comfort him? Not unaccustomed was Paul to have the fairest visions on the darkest roads. The dungeon at Philippi had become to him a throne of glory. Expelled from the Corinthian synagogue the Lord draws near to him there. And the same vision that was to strengthen him on his way to Rome comforts him now: The Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul. And we may suppose that he who had been too weary to sleep was now too happy to sleep.
Conclusion:
1. We think of the preciousness of a good man. We have bad here the usual variety of men–a pretentious hypocrite, his furious associates, an average heathen captain, his stupid soldiery, and besides these one man who lived in all good conscience before God. It is easy to see who is Master, and He rules our hearts today.
2. Yet the good man is among enemies. He did not imagine that to be on the right side is to be on the easy side.
3. But the good man among enemies has Gods care and love. (H. A. Edson, D. D.)
Paul before the council
It was a scene of strange contrasts and apparently unequal conflict–one man, face to face with the representative body of a whole people, hot for merciless judgment. And yet he does not seem to be disconcerted. He rises to the occasion, and, looking steadfastly on the council, begins his defence.
I. Paul spoke out of an honest conviction.
1. I have lived before God in all good conscience. The apostle refers not so much to character as to purpose. The chief of sinners, as he calls himself, would hardly make boast of his faultlessness; he simply asserts that he is actuated by a supreme desire to do right in the sight of God. It is true he has broken with the religion of his fathers, but he is not a fanatical extremist and destructive. His only anxiety is to honour God.
2. Hearty conviction is ever a prerequisite of power. It is not the truth which we touch with our fingertips, but the truth which we grasp firmly, that is made mighty through God. Mere speculation or half faith are worth little. The men of mark in history have been men of strong convictions. Napoleon devoutly believed in what he called his star, and his faith in it made him the great soldier of Europe. More especially is it true that, in advancing the gospel, its defenders need definite convictions
II. Paul frankly admitted his errors of judgment.
1. The apostle had spoken without knowing whom he addressed, and he was in haste to state that his fault was one of ignorance, and not of intent. He stood for truth, and had no wish for anything but legitimate methods of defence.
2. It is never judicious for the advocates of truth to assume that they are infallible, and their opponents always wrong. In the conflict between science and revelation, and between Church and Church, assumption on the one side and the other is altogether too prominent. The true spirit of teachableness is always ready to admit its fallibility.
III. Paul made use of the things in which he and his hearers were agreed, to lead them to consider the things in which they disagreed.
1. It was a shrewd stroke, but it was not the trick of a demagogue. It was in the line of Pauls uniform policy. To the Jew he became as a Jew. His business was to win men to Christ, and any expedient that helped to that end was legitimate. Especially was it fitting that he should enlist the sympathy of some of his hearers by assuring them that, in common with them, he had faith in immortality, and that the doctrine he taught was vitally related to that grandest of truths.
2. There is instruction here for those who endeavour to induce men to accept the gospel. How can we best get a leverage upon men? Certainly not by assault, but by advancing from the admitted to the unknown. Christian believers and the irreligious world hold some truths in common–the existence of God, the fact of sin, the need of pardon, the endless hereafter; and the efficient Christian worker puts himself on a level with the mass, owns a common frailty, emphasises common needs, and shows the way to a common salvation. To lead men, not to drive them into the kingdom–is the ideal of Christian work. (E. S. Attwood, D. D.)
Paul before the council
1. Paul could look steadfastly at the council, for he was no criminal whose own knowledge of guilt should cause him to hang his head in shame.
2. Paul realised that he was living before God. A man is not likely to go far wrong so long as he remembers that Gods eye is constantly upon him.
3. Paul had that best of all possessions, an approving conscience. Therefore Paul was confident and independent.
4. Pauls words enraged Ananias. Nothing arouses a bad mans anger sooner than a reminder of a good mans goodness.
5. Paul could feel and express a righteous indignation. Christianity never takes the backbone out of a man.
6. Paul could righteously regret his indignant response after it was uttered. The best Christian makes mistakes of ignorance. (S. S. Times.)
Paul before the council
The narrative–
I. Teaches the comfort and necessity, under such circumstances, of a good conscience. Paul, standing before the council, could look his enemies in the eye. He had done nothing he was ashamed of. What misery has he whose former sins must be concealed from his fellow men! Only he who is conscious of rectitude can maintain his peace and self-possession in the face of foes. There was no assumption of self-conceit in Pauls quiet assertion. His statement was simply the truth. Self-respect is very different from self-conceit.
II. Throws some light on the duty and manner of rebuke.
1. An innocent man, whom malignity is seeking to crush, cannot but be indignant. Shall he express his mind to his enemies? The Bible tells us, Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him; but immediately adds, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. This apparent contradiction means that we must be governed by circumstances. Ananias had been guilty of a brutal outrage. Christs example on a similar occasion is, to be sure, somewhat in contrast to that of the apostle (Joh 18:22-23). And yet, on occasion. He called the Pharisees serpents, generation of vipers, and, as Paul evidently remembered in his appellation of Ananias, whited sepulchres. Rebuke, then, is proper at certain times. But it is equally clear that such a weapon should be used cautiously. It is easy to be hasty, unkind, presumptuous in rebuke.
2. The narrative certainly makes one important limitation to rebuke, as it shows that ones office may command respectful treatment, when personal character does not. I wist not, brethren, etc. Do we, in this irreverent age, remember this? The president of the United States deserves a certain consideration as president which he might not receive as a private citizen. We must honour his office, if not him. We grievously wrong ourselves and our country when we indiscriminately denounce those high in authority. We weaken government in bringing our lawgivers, judges, and executives into public contempt. Let it be apparent that a public office exposes one to slander and disrespect, presently the office will go a begging for good men; only those whose unworthiness makes them callous to dishonour will consent to take it. So with the ministry.
III. Shows the value to the Christian in trouble of a familiarity with the Scriptures. How readily and happily Paul handled Gods Word! The Christian in trouble has no such defence as the Scripture. Here is an armoury whence may be drawn weapons for every need. But, to be available, it must be always at hand. As soldiers, in time of war, sleep on their arms, ready at a moments warning to spring to their feet, rifle in hand, so must we have the texts of Scripture so familiar that we can without delay bring them to bear as needed.
IV. Reveals the method to be used in presenting truth. First find a common standing place in some truth on which both agree, and then work up from this. Paul addressed the council as brother men. This was one point of union. He claimed to have lived in all good conscience; and all acknowledged the authority of conscience. He declared himself a Pharisee: a third point of union. He then advanced to doctrines which a part of them held in common–immortality and the resurrection. Paul pursued the same method in his famous speech at Athens. This was sanctified wisdom. Before we ascend the pyramid together, we must rendezvous at the base. In confuting the arguments of unbelievers, the first thing is to find out what we hold in common. In winning souls to Christ the first step is to establish an identity of interests and views on such fundamental truths as our sense of sin, our longing for heaven, our need of salvation, our dependence on Christ.
V. Illustrates the place of expediency in the Christians conduct. Pauls words started a dissension which instantly divided their forces. Pauls course was shrewd. How far is such shrewdness allowable? Notice that Paul first attempted to meet his accusers on high ground, which is met with a blow on the mouth, he can hope nothing, then, from such a course. He has tried the first horn of his dilemma; he must now take the other, and answer a fool according to his folly. It is possible to be keen, quick witted, swift to seize advantages, turning disaster into victory, and yet be honest, truthful, and perfectly fair. Our Saviour blames His followers because the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light; and elsewhere commands them to be wise as serpents. Still we feel strongly that there is a limit here. It is hard to draw the line. The question must rather be decided by each man in the individual emergency. On the one hand, however, it is plain that the Christian may use all his quickness of intellect to escape from difficulties; while, on the other, he must in no way do aught that is unfair to his fellow men, belittling to himself, or dishonourable to God.
VI. Teaches us Gods care. What a contrast between the confusion and tumult of that day was the quiet night succeeding, when the apostle saw Jesus standing beside him, and heard Him lovingly say, Be of good cheer, etc. This is the best part of life, when, after the troublous scenes of our daily battle, Christ comes to us to cheer and strengthen us. (A. P. Foster.)
Incidental characteristics
1. We sometimes pay compliments unconsciously, and tributes to power in the very act of appearing to despise it. Paul never appeared socially greater than when sent to Caesarea with two hundred soldiers, etc.
so small a man. We have entered into a new region of apostolic history; we shall sometimes be almost amused by certain aspects of it–such great courts and such a small prisoner.
2. And yet Paul is like his Master–the only quiet man in all the tumult. Paul had himself once been a member of the council which he now addressed as a prisoner! He looks as well in the dock as he looked on the bench; but the remembrance of his once having been on the bench gives him his first sentence–Men and brethren. Think of the criminal addressing the judge as a brother! The quality of men comes out at unexpected places. In no company was there a greater man than Paul.
3. How proud his beginning with a humble pride! (verse 1). Earnest speakers reveal themselves in their first sentence.
4. But goodness always awakens wickedness. Hearing a man claim a good conscience, the high priest was reminded of his own evil career, and commanded them that stood by Paul to smite him on the mouth. That is the only thing the bad man can do. He has no other shot in his locker.
5. Now we see quite a near aspect of Paul. He has borne so much that we thought he would bear everything to the last; but there was a priestism which Paul could not bear, so he exclaimed, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall–a mass of clay chalked over, a white robe covering a black character. Nor was this mere anger. It was inspired by moral emotion and conviction. The reason of this anger is given. We are bound to defend eternal rectitude. It is a sin to appear to be satisfied when the heart is filled with a conviction that things are wrong. Paul speaks here not for himself only, but for every man who suffers wrongfully. The prophecy was fulfilled: the beast was dragged out not long afterward and killed by vengeful hands.
6. It is curious to notice, and most instructive, how religious some people suddenly become. They that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? Hypocrites, everyone I
7. In what follows Paul has been condemned, and commentators have endeavoured to screen him from the sight of those who would be only too anxious to discover a flaw in such fine porcelain. But Paul needs no defence. We may read, I did not sufficiently reflect that he was the high priest; or, better still, ironically, The high priest breaking the law! This cannot be the high priest! Again Paul advances a moral reason–for that was the great battering ram with which he delivered his most terrific blows. For it is written, etc. Mark the composure, the ability, the gentlemanliness. Up to this point Paul has the best of it. Surely someone must be standing at his right hand whom we cannot see. In this history note–
I. That it is lawful to break up unholy truces. The Pharisees and the Sadducees have combined in a common cause, whereas they are themselves divided by the greatest differences. Paul says, I will break this up. His suggestion was effectual. The Pharisees and the Sadducees fell upon one another, and the Pharisees took his part. It was a master stroke, and we should not forget it in modern controversies.
II. That it is lawful to defeat unholy conspiracies. Forty men had bound themselves together neither to eat nor drink until they had slain Paul. Never believe in the oath of bad men; and if you have overheard their plots, publish them. There are confidences we gladly hide away in the heart, but they have no relation to courses which would unhinge society. Put every possible obstacle in the way of bad men. Imagine the forty Jews baffled in their design, and not knowing how they had been baffled! Said they, Who knew about this? The oath has been broken by some traitor, and nine-and-thirty voices reply to the fortieth, No. Then how is this? There is the mysterious element in life, the anonymous force, the mischief that upsets our mischief. This is always Gods purpose. We do not know how things happen. But something always does happen.
III. That in the most saintly lives there are moments of apparent desertion by God. Throughout these exciting events, where is the living Lord? The apostle is smitten on the mouth and sent away as a criminal. How is this? Is this the poor return for all the labour we have traced? Yet we ourselves have been in exactly those spiritual circumstances. God does stand afar off sometimes. Why does He not always stand close to the heart that has never struck but in His praise? What is this desertion? It may only be the sleep of the soul, the winter time in which God is giving the life deep rest, and a time of recruital and renewal. Sleep is not death; the conscious absence of God is not atheism. We must learn to bear these vacancies; we cannot always be upon the mountain top. It is part of our larger education.
IV. That the desertion is apparent, not real; or temporary, not final. Verse 11 shines over all the rest of this dark chapter. Tomorrow night is coming; this night is not the final darkness. This verse brings us face to face with the fact that Christian consciousness is the beginning of Christian argument. Elisha had the inner vision which saw the nearer army. Jesus Christ combined both the statements upon which we are now dwelling in one sublime utterance; said He, I am alone, yet not alone; for the Father is with Me. We must destroy the character before we can destroy the testimony.
1. This is a good answer to all attacks upon the altar of prayer. Has your prayer been answered? When the suppliant can say Yes, that settles the question. The appeal is not to your little scholarship or criticism. Here the man–the well-known man, the man with the solid character, and the sensible, penetrating mind–says, My prayers have been answered. We have been now so long with Paul that we have come to know somewhat about him. He is a strong man, a man of great mental capacity, of distinct logical faculty and unexampled common sense, and now he steps into the witness box and says, The Lord stood by me. What is our answer?
2. Here also we find illustrations of the supreme argument for immortality. This is not a question to be determined by logical fencing and historical research; we must go by the instinctive nature. As for our immortality, we know it; it is graven upon the very substratum of our life.
V. That the enemy is made to serve the cause he would destroy. Thou must bear witness also at Rome, and the enemy shall pay the expenses. The enemy is always forced into servitude. God maketh the wrath of man to praise Him. Everything is working for Christ, if we could only see it so; all secular progress is simply making a wider road for the chariot of Immanuel. There is a shorter way from Jerusalem to Rome now than there was in the days of Paul. The invention of steam was an incident in the development of Christian progress. Christians ought to keep their eyes open. The moment there is a new way of travelling invented, the first traveller should be a missionary. The instant you can find a shorter way of communicating with the distant parts of the earth, you should send a Christian message through the new medium. The ships are Christs, and you have let other people use them first for merchandise, and the missionary has been stowed away somewhere as a thing not wholly welcome. The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. I would have the Church buy up all bad houses and make good places of them; I would have the Church advertise gospel services in every newspaper; I would have the Church–alive! The Church is not the heroic force of this day, saying, I must see Rome also. When the Church goes to see Rome, the Church goes in a tweed suit, in holiday attire, incog. What is our calling in Christ? Is it to fall asleep, or to be the first force in society? Let me call younger men to heroic temper in this matter. Never mind the charge of madness; in His own day they said that Jesus had a devil, and that He was mad; and later on they said that Paul was beside himself. If Christianity is not a passion supreme in the soul, it is the greatest mistake ever perpetrated by intellectual men. (J. Parker, D. D.)
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.—
A good conscience towards God
proceeds from–
1. True faith in Christ, which obtains forgiveness of sins.
2. The assurance of Divine grace and eternal life.
3. The renewal of the Holy Ghost to a new life.
4. The faithful performance of our calling. (Starke.)
The comfort of a good conscience
I. On what basis it rests.
1. Justification by faith.
2. Diligence in sanctification.
II. To what purpose it serves.
1. Courageous working.
2. Joyful suffering. (K. Gerok.)
Conscience in review of the past
Remark how the apostle describes his early life in Php 3:4-6. Those who attribute to Christianity a gloomy condemnation of, and a certain injustice towards, the natural man, and that which is good in him; or even those real devotees who, going beyond the truth, think badly of and inveigh against themselves and their former life, may learn here from Pauls example that a regenerate man may rejoice before God and man, even in his former relatively good conscience, when in a position of error and sin, if his present conscience in Christ bears him witness that he has not been a hypocrite. When a warrior, honourable in his vocation, is taunted after his conversion as a devotee and a hypocrite, he may boldly say, Sirs, I have always been an honest and good comrade to you; trust me that I shall be so now. (R. Stier, D. D.)
Conscience not the whole of Christian character
There are many men who are very conscientious; but conscience is not the crown of Christian character. Love is the master, and conscience must be its servant. Conscience is a hewer of wood and stone, and a bringer of water. Conscience is necessary; it is indispensable. But suppose a man were to build a house. No doubt it would be indispensable that he should have good square sills and strong corner posts. It would be essential that all the timbers should be of ample strength, and well knitted together and braced. But suppose, after all the timbers were in place and properly jointed, he should ask me to come to his house and see him. A house with nothing but timbers would be like a character which was made up of conscience and nothing else. Before a man asks you into his house, he covers the timbers up outside and inside, so that the walls are smooth and pleasant to come in contact with and to look upon; and if a mans character is to be complete, conscience in that character should be covered up by other qualities and made sweet and smooth. Oftentimes, where a man invites his friends to see him, the ceiling of his house is frescoed, and the floor is richly carpeted, and the rooms are light and cheerful, and on every hand are tokens of hospitality. Hospitality does not ask you to sit on a log because a log is necessary to the building of a house. But many men are square-built, conscience-framed men. I would as lief sit on the square end of a log all my life as to live with men who, though they have consciences, are harsh and unlovely and unfruitful, because there is nothing in them to cover up that conscience. Conscience is desirable and necessary; but in order to make it tolerable, love should be thrown around it. Conscience is the frame of character, and love is the covering for it. (H. W. Beecher.)
And the high priest Ananias commanded to smite him on the mouth.–
Judicial incongruity
Neither animals nor men look well in incongruous situations. On the ground the sloths are about the most awkward and pitiable creatures that can well be imagined, for their forelegs are much longer than the hind ones; all the toes are terminated by very long curved claws; and the general structure of the animals is such as entirely to preclude the possibility of their walking on all fours in the manner of an ordinary quadruped. In this, which is an unnatural situation, they certainly appear the most helpless of animals, and their only means of progression consists in hooking their claws to some inequality in the ground, and thus dragging their bodies painfully along. But in their natural home, amongst the branches of trees, all these seeming disadvantages vanish. It is obvious, therefore, that when the sloth is not in the trees he is in an incongruous situation. And what a lesson his absurd position there should be to us not to make ourselves ridiculous by appearing on scenes where we can only exhibit our incapacity, and evoke either the pity or laughter of mankind! A mart with an inapt, unjudicial mind, presiding on the bench of justice, and performing his functions under the inspiration of a bad heart and an uneven temper, is a spectacle whose incongruity equals that presented by the most clumsy sloth that ever ambled out of its element. Monstrously incongruous, too, is that other spectacle, of a man who has a jockeys tastes and a bulldogs nature, stalking down to the gilded chamber occupied by the highest wisdom in England, for the purpose of displaying himself as a hereditary legislator ruling a free people. Poor awkward sloth! dragging yourself in unhandy fashion over the ground along which you were never intended to travel, you may be a sad illustration of a creature in an incongruous position, but you are not the most laughable one. These men dispute with you the prize for being the most ridiculous. (Scientific Illustrations.)
The outrage of justice by a judge
I. It was most unprovoked. Was there anything to justify such gross insolence and injustice?
1. Was there anything in that look of Pauls? He seems to have given them a wonderful look. It was one of conscious innocence and of searching observation. We may rest assured there was nothing insolent or hard in it, and it must have filled him with melting memories. Certainly there could have been nothing in the look to have provoked the high priest.
2. Was there anything in his address? His declaration that he had lived in all good conscience before God until that day was far more adapted to conciliate than to offend.
II. It was nobly met.
1. With manly courage. The spirit of Paul, instead of cowering before this insult, rose into noble defiance. The heavenly Teacher Himself denounced the Pharisees as whited sepulchres. The words may be either an imprecation or prediction. If the former, it was an outburst, not unjustified, of a warm temper which formed the foundation of a noble nature. Indignation in itself is not wrong, but a virtuous passion when roused, as in this case, by the vision of a moral enormity. If the latter, the apostle spoke under the inspiration of truth. Josephus informs us that Ananias, with his brother Hezekiah, were slain, when the insurgent ruffians, under their leader Manahem, had got possession of the holy city.
2. By commendable candour. Then said Paul, I wist not, etc. Some suppose that the apostle speaks ironically; that he meant to say, I never could suppose that a man who so outraged justice should sit in her seat and administer her affairs. Others suppose that he really meant what he said; that he really did not know that he was a high priest. Those who take the latter view must regard the apostle as in some measure apologising for his hastiness. The best men are liable to be overtaken by temper, and a candour like Pauls is a rare excellence. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.–
Whited walls
Pauls characterisation recalls at once our Lords denunciation of the Pharisees. This proverbial expression is common over all the East, and the custom which gave rise to it goes back to the times of the ancient Egyptians. Old Egyptian tombs consisted of a deep shaft sunk in the rock, with a subterranean chamber, and sarcophagus containing the body. At the top of the shaft was built a sacrificial chamber, or chambers, which it was the custom to decorate richly with coloured sculptures. Thus, the chamber above ground was decorated with scenes of life and gladness, strangely at variance with the gloomy chamber below. In Palestine most of the mukams, or little sacred buildings built in honour of the local saints, are cenotaphs or tomb buildings. These mukams may be seen on almost every hilltop; they are kept with scrupulous care; offerings are placed in them frequently; and they are whitewashed before every great religious festival. The ordinary Mohammedan graves are often heaped with rubble, which is then covered with stucco. A somewhat similar comparison to that in the text appears in the early Christian writers; as, for instance, in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. Speaking of certain offenders, Ignatius says, These to me are monuments and tombs which bear only the names of men. Here there may be another allusion besides that which is apparent to the Western reader. In rabbinic the word nephesh means the vital principle, a person himself, and a tomb. Of nephesh in this last sense, it might punningly be said to be nephesh–or a living person–only in name. (S. S. Times.)
Whited walls
Holy offices, spiritual titles, priestly dignities, are but as white lime if they cover an impure heart. (G. V. Lechler, D. D.)
Threatenings merciful
All denunciations of what will happen to the doer of evil are merciful calls to repentance; and had Ananias turned from those sins which Paul denounced when he spoke of him as a whited wall, he might have been saved from the punishment which befell him, and would have Shared the blessedness given to penitents in the life to come. (Bp. Wordsworth.)
And they said, Revilest thou Gods high priest?—
Reviling dignitaries
There could hardly be a greater crime, according to Jewish rabbinical notions, than to fail in proper respect to the religious authorities. There is for thee no greater honour than the honour of the rabbis, nor fear than the fear of the rabbis. The Sages have said, The fear of the rabbi is as the fear of God. The rabbins also provide that proper respect should be paid to them in greetings. The man who meets a rabbi must not give the shalom [the greeting, Peace be upon thee] to his rabbi, or return it to him, as he gives it to his neighbours or returns it to them. But he must bow before his face, and say to him with reverence and honour, Peace be upon thee, my master (rabbi). And the penalties for contempt of rabbinical authority extend also to the next life. No man who despises the Sages, it is said, will have part in the world to come. (S. S. Times.)
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest.—
Pauls ignorance of the high priest
Considering the disrepute and insignificance into which the high priesthood had fallen during the dominance of men who would only, as a rule, take it for a short time, in order to pass the chair; considering that one of these worldly intruders took it wearing silk gloves, that he might not soil his hands with the sacrifices; considering, too, that the Romans and the Herods were constantly setting up one and putting down another at their own caprice, and that he people often regarded someone as the real high priest who was no longer invested with the actual office; considering, too, that in such ways the pontificate of these truckling Sadducees had sunk into a mere simulacrum of what once it was, and that the real allegiance of the people had been completely transferred to the more illustrious rabbis–it is perfectly conceivable that Paul, after his long absence from Jerusalem, had not, during the few and much occupied days which had elapsed since his return, given himself the trouble to inquire whether a Kamhit or a Boethusian, or a Canthera, was at that particular moment adorned with the empty title which he probably disgraced. He must, of course, have been aware that the high priest was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin; but in a crowded assembly he had not noticed who the speaker was. Owing to his weakened sight, all he saw before him was a blurred white figure issuing a brutal order, and to this person, who, in his external whiteness and inward worthlessness, thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulchre, he had addressed his indignant denunciation. That he should retract it on learning the hallowed position of the delinquent was in accordance with that high breeding of the perfect gentleman which in all his demeanour he habitually displayed. (Archdeacon Farrar.)
Pauls ignorance of the high priest
Paul would never have guessed the priestly character of Ananias from his conduct. Outside testimony was necessary to show that the religious ruler was there. It is a great pity when a man has to furnish some other evidence than his speech and conduct that he is worthy of respect and confidence. It is not to a mans credit when those who have seen him and heard him speak can say, I had no idea from his style of speech that he was a clergyman; I did not suppose that he was a church member; I am surprised that he holds a position of trust. Even a child ought to be known by his doings. It is to his shame if those who watch him say, He does not act as though he had a good mother; He certainly fails to show that he has been well brought up; I cannot understand how that boy has been in a good Sunday school for five years. How is it with you? Would everybody who meets you wist that you are as worthy of a good name and of an honourable station as you claim to be? (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXIII.
Paul defending himself before the high priest, he commands him
to be smitten on the mouth, 1, 2.
Paul sharply reproves him, and, being reproved for this by one
of the attendants, accounts for his conduct, 3-5.
Seeing that the assembly was composed of Pharisees and
Sadducees, and that he could expect no justice from his judges,
he asserts that it was for his belief in the resurrection that
he was called in question, on which the Pharisees declare in
his favour, 6-9.
A great dissension arises, and the chief captain, fearing lest
Paul should be pulled to pieces, brings him into the castle,
10.
He is comforted by a dream, 11.
More than forty persons conspire his death, 12-15.
Paul’s sister’s son, hearing of it, informs the captain of the
guard, 16-22.
He sends Paul by night, under a strong escort of horse and
foot, to Caesarea, to Felix, and with him a letter, stating
the circumstances of the case, 23-33.
They arrive at Caesarea, and Felix promises him a hearing when
his accusers shall come down, 34, 35.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIII.
Verse 1. I have lived in all good conscience] Some people seem to have been unnecessarily stumbled with this expression. What does the apostle mean by it? Why, that, while he was a Jew, he was one from principle of conscience; that what he did, while he continued Jew, he did from the same principle; that, when God opened his eyes to see the nature of Christianity, he became a Christian, because God persuaded his conscience that it was right for him to become one; that, in a word, he was sincere through the whole course of his religious life, and his conduct had borne the most unequivocal proofs of it. The apostle means, therefore, that there was no part of his life in which he acted as a dishonest or hypocritical man; and that he was now as fully determined to maintain his profession of Christianity as he ever was to maintain that of Judaism, previously to his acquaintance with the Christian religion.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Said, Men and brethren; acknowledging himself to have descended from the patriarchs as well as they; and bespeaks, as much as he could, their favour and attention.
I have lived in all good conscience; not that he thought himself to have been without sin or fault, for he acknowledges and bewails his captivity to the law of sin, Rom 7:23,24; but that he was not conscious to himself of any notorious impiety (as sacrilege, which they accused him of); nay, he had not suffered willingly any sin to be, much less to reign, in him. And as for his persecuting of the Christians, he did it not to flatter any with it, or upon any sinister design whatsoever, but thinking to serve God by it, 1Ti 1:13.
Before God; in the sense of Gods seeing of him, and whom St. Paul acknowledges to be the searcher and knower of the heart and conscience.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Paul, earnestly beholding thecouncilwith a look of conscious integrity and unfalteringcourage, perhaps also recognizing some of his early fellow pupils.
I have lived in all goodconscience before God until this dayThe word has an indirectreference to the “polity” or “commonwealth of Israel,”of which he would signify that he had been, and was to that hour, anhonest and God-fearing member.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Paul earnestly beholding the council,…. Fastening his eyes upon them, looking wistly and intently at them, and thereby discovering a modest cheerfulness, and a becoming boldness, confidence, and intrepidity, as being not conscious of any guilt, and well assured of the goodness of his cause:
said, men and brethren; see Ac 22:1.
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day; not only from the time of his conversion, but throughout the whole of his life; for though, strictly speaking, there is no good conscience but what is awakened by the Spirit of God, and is unprincipled by his grace, and is purged from sin by the blood of Christ; in which sense he could only have a good conscience, since he believed in Christ; yet whereas in his state of unregeneracy, and even while he was a blasphemer, and persecutor, he did not act contrary to the dictates of his conscience, but according to them, in which his view was to the glory of God, and the honour of his law; he therefore says he lived before God, or unto God, in all good conscience, though an erroneous and mistaken one; he thought he ought to do what he did; and what he did, he did with a zeal for God though it was not according to knowledge: besides, the apostle has here respect to his outward moral conversation, which, before and after conversion, was very strict, and even blameless, at least unblemished before men; nobody could charge him with any notorious crime, though he did not live without sin in the sight of the omniscient God.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Paul’s Second Defence. |
| |
1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. 2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? 4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? 5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Perhaps when Paul was brought, as he often was (corpus cum causa–the person and the cause together), before heathen magistrates and councils, where he and his cause were slighted, because not at all understood, he thought, if he were brought before the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, he should be able to deal with them to some good purpose, and yet we do not find that he works at all upon them. Here we have,
I. Paul’s protestation of his own integrity. Whether the chief priest put any question to him, or the chief captain made any representation of his case to the court, we are not told; but Paul appeared here,
1. With a good courage. He was not at all put out of countenance upon his being brought before such an august assembly, for which in his youth he had conceived such a veneration; nor did he fear their calling him to an account about the letters they gave him to Damascus, to persecute the Christians there, though (for aught we know) this was the first time he had ever seem them since; but he earnestly beheld the council. When Stephen was brought before them, they thought to have faced him down, but could not, such was his holy confidence; they looked stedfastly on him, and his face was as that of an angel, ch. vi. 15. Now that Paul was brought before them he thought to have faced them down, but could not, such was their wicked impudence. However, now was fulfilled in him what God promised to Ezekiel (Act 3:8; Act 3:9): I have made thy face strong against their faces; fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks.
2. With a good conscience, and that gave him a good courage.
| —-Hic murus aheneus esto, Nil conscire sibi—- Be this thy brazen bulwark of defence, Still to preserve thy conscious innocence. |
He said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day. However I may be reproached, my heart does not reproach me, but witnesses for me.” (1.) He had always been a man inclined to religion; he never was a man that lived at large, but always put a difference between moral good and evil; even in his unregenerate state, he was, as touching the righteousness that was in the law, blameless. He was no unthinking man, who never considered what he did, no designing man, who cared not what he did, so he could but compass his own ends. (2.) Even when he persecuted the church of God, he thought he ought to do it, and that he did God service in it. Though his conscience was misinformed, yet he acted according to the dictates of it. See ch. xxvi. 9. (3.) He seems rather to speak of the time since his conversion, since he left the service of the high priest, and fell under their displeasure for so doing; he does not say, From my beginning until this day; but, “All the time in which you have looked upon me as a deserter, an apostate, and an enemy to your church, even to this day, I have lived in all good conscience before God; whatever you may think of me, I have in every thing approved myself to God, and lived honestly,” Heb. xiii. 18. He had aimed at nothing but to please God and do his duty, in those things for which they were so incensed against him; in all he had done towards the setting up of the kingdom of Christ, and the setting of it up among the Gentiles, he had acted conscientiously. See here the character of an honest man. [1.] He sets God before him, and lives as in his sight, and under his eyes, and with an eye to him. Walk before me, and be thou upright. [2.] He makes conscience of what he says and does, and, though he may be under some mistakes, yet, according to the best of his knowledge, he abstains from that which is evil and cleaves to that which is good. [3.] He is universally conscientious; and those that are not so are not at all truly conscientious; is so in all manner of conversation: “I have lived in all good conscience; have had my whole conversation under the direction and dominion of conscience.” [4.] He continues so, and perseveres in it: “I have lived so until this day.” Whatever changes pass over him, he is still the same, strictly conscientious. And those who thus live in all good conscience before God may, like Paul here, lift up their face without spot; and, if their hearts condemn them not, may have confidence both towards God and man, as Job had when he still held fast his integrity, and Paul himself, whose rejoicing was this, the testimony of his conscience.
II. The outrage of which Ananias the high priest was guilty: he commanded those that stood by, the beadles that attended the court, to smite him on the mouth (v. 2), to give him a dash on the teeth, either with a hand or with a rod. Our Lord Jesus was thus despitefully used in this court, by one of the servants (John xviii. 22), as was foretold, Mic. v. 1, They shall smite the Judge of Israel upon the cheek. But here was an order of court for the doing of it, and, it is likely, it was done. 1. The high priest was highly offended at Paul; some think, because he looked so boldly and earnestly at the council, as if he would face them down; others because he did not address himself particularly to him as president, with some title of honour and respect, but spoke freely and familiarly to them all, as men and brethren. His protestation of his integrity was provocation enough to one who was resolved to run him down and make him odious. When he could charge him with no crime, he thought it was crime enough that he asserted his own innocency. 2. In his rage he ordered him to be smitten, so to put disgrace upon him, and to be smitten on the mouth, as having offended with his lips, and in token of his enjoining him silence. This brutish and barbarous method he had recourse to when he could not answer the wisdom and spirit wherewith he spoke. Thus Zedekiah smote Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 24), and Pashur smote Jeremiah (Jer. xx. 2), when they spoke in the name of the Lord. If therefore we see such indignities done to good men, nay, if they be done to us for well doing and well saying, we must not think it strange; Christ will give those the kisses of his mouth (Cant. i. 2) who for his sake receive blows on the mouth. And though it may be expected that, as Solomon says, every man should kiss his lips that giveth a right answer (Prov. xxiv. 26), yet we often see the contrary.
III. The denunciation of the wrath of God against the high priest for this wickedness in the place of judgment (Eccl. iii. 16): it agrees with what follows there, v. 17, with which Solomon comforted himself (I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked): God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, v. 3. Paul did not speak this in any sinful heat or passion, but in a holy zeal against the high priest’s abuse of his power, and with something of a prophetic spirit, not at all with a spirit of revenge. 1. He gives him his due character: Thou whited wall; that is, thou hypocrite–a mud-wall, trash and dirt and rubbish underneath, but plastered over, or white-washed. It is the same comparison in effect with that of Christ, when he compares the Pharisees to whited sepulchres, Matt. xxiii. 27. Those that daubed with untempered mortar failed not to daub themselves over with something that made them look not only clean, but gay. 2. He reads him his just doom: “God shall smite thee, shall bring upon thee his sore judgments, especially spiritual judgments.” Grotius thinks this was fulfilled soon after, in his removal from the office of the high priest, either by death or deprivation, for he finds another in that office a little while after this; probably he was smitten by some sudden stroke of divine vengeance. Jeroboam’s hand was withered when it was stretched out against a prophet. 3. He assigns a good reason for that doom: “For sittest thou there as president in the supreme judicature of the church, pretending to judge me after the law, to convict and condemn me by the law, and yet commandest me to be smitten before any crime is proved upon me, which is contrary to the law?” No man must be beaten unless he be worthy to be beaten, Deut. xxv. 2. It is against all law, human and divine, natural and positive, to hinder a man from making his defense, and to condemn him unheard. When Paul was beaten by the rabble, he could say, Father, forgive them, they know not what they do; but it is inexcusable in a high priest that is appointed to judge according to the law.
IV. The offence which was taken at this bold word of Paul’s (v. 4): Those that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? It is a probable conjecture that those who blamed Paul for what he said were believing Jews, who were zealous for the law, and consequently for the honour of the high priest, and therefore took it ill that Paul should thus reflect upon him, and checked him for it. See here then, 1. What a hard game Paul had to play, when his enemies were abusive to him, and his friends were so far from standing by him, and appearing for him, that they were ready to find fault with his management. 2. How apt even the disciples of Christ themselves are to overvalue outward pomp and power. As because the temple had been God’s temple, and a magnificent structure, there were those who followed Christ that could not bear to have any thing said that threatened the destruction of it; so because the high priest had been God’s high priest, and was a man that made a figure, though he was an inveterate enemy to Christianity, yet these were disgusted at Paul for giving him his due.
V. The excuse that Paul made for what he had said, because he found it was a stumbling-block to his weak brethren, and might prejudice them against him in other things. These Jewish Christians, though weak, yet were brethren, so he calls them here, and, in consideration of that, is almost ready to recall his words; for who is offended, saith he, and I burn not? 2 Cor. xi. 29. His fixed resolution was rather to abridge himself in the use of his Christian liberty than give offence to a weak brother; rather than do this, he will eat no flesh while the world stands, 1 Cor. viii. 13. And so here though he had taken the liberty to tell the high priest his own, yet, when he found it gave offence, he cried Peccavi–I have done wrong. He wished he had not done it; and though he did not beg the high priest’s pardon, nor excuse it to him, yet he begs their pardon who took offence at it, because this was not a time to inform them better, nor to say what he could say to justify himself. 1. He excuses it with this, that he did not consider when he said it to whom he spoke (v. 5): I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest—ouk edein. “I did not just then think of the dignity of his place, or else I would have spoken more respectfully to him.” I see not how we can with any probability think that Paul did not know him to be the high priest, for Paul had been seven days in the temple at the time of the feast, where he could not miss of seeing the high priest; and his telling him that he sat to judge him after the law shows that he knew who he was; but, says he, I did not consider it. Dr. Whitby puts this sense upon it, that the prophetic impulse that was upon him, and inwardly moved him to say what he did, did not permit him to notice that it was the high priest, lest this law might have restrained him from complying with that impulse; but the Jews acknowledged that prophets might use a liberty in speaking of rulers which others might not, as Isa 1:10; Isa 1:23. Or (as he quotes the sense of Grotius and Lightfoot) Paul does not go about to excuse what he had said in the least, but rather to justify it; “I own that God’s high priest is not to be reviled, but I do not own this Ananias to be high priest. He is a usurper; he came to the office by bribery and corruption, and the Jewish rabbin say that he who does so is neither a judge nor to be honoured as such.” Yet, 2. He takes care that what he had said should not be drawn into a precedent, to the weakening of the obligation of that law in the least: For it is written, and it remains a law in full force, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. It is for the public good that the honour of magistracy should be supported, and not suffer for the miscarriages of those who are entrusted with it, and therefore that decorum be observed in speaking both of and to princes and judges. Even in Job’s time it was not thought fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked, or to princes, You are ungodly, Job xxxiv. 18. Even when we do well, and suffer for it, we must take it patiently, 1 Pet. ii. 20. Not as if great men may not hear of their faults, and public grievances be complained of by proper persons and in a decent manner, but there must be a particular tenderness for the honour and reputation of those in authority more than of other people, because the law of God requires a particular reverence to be paid to them, as God’s vicegerents; and it is of dangerous consequence to have those any way countenanced who despise dominions, and speak evil of dignities, Jude 8. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought, Eccl. x. 20.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Looking steadfastly (). See on this word Acts 1:10; Acts 3:12; Acts 6:15; Acts 7:55; Acts 13:9. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged.
I have lived before God ( ). Perfect middle indicative of , old verb to manage affairs of city () or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and Php 1:27. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. “He had lived as God’s citizen, as a member of God’s commonwealth” (Rackham). God () is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God.
In all good conscience unto this day ( ). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity’s sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Ti 1:13-16). But that depends on one’s interpretation of “good conscience.” The word is literally “joint-knowledge” in Greek, Latin (conscientia) and English “conscience” from the Latin. It is a late word from , to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one’s own thoughts (Heb 10:2), or of one’s own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Ro 2:15) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Cor 8:7; 1Cor 8:10; 1Pet 2:19). The conscience can be contaminated (Heb 10:22, evil ). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul’s description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Ti 1:13-16). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no “apologies” (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God’s commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Pe 3:16). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul’s Epistles, but we see it at work in Joh 8:9 (the interpolation 7:53-8:11).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Earnestly beholding. See on Luk 4:20. Some, who hold that Paul ‘s eyesight was defective, explain this steadfast look in connection with his imperfect vision.
Men and brethren. He addresses the Sanhedrim as an equal.
I have lived [] . Lit., have lived as a citizen, with special reference to the charge against him that he taught men against the law and the temple. He means that he has lived as a true and loyal Jew.
Conscience [] . See on 1Pe 3:16.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
PAUL SET BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN V. 1-5
1) “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said,” (atenisas de ho Paulos to sunedrio eipen) “Then Paul gazing at the council (looking them straight in the eye) said,” or gave his testimony calmly, without fear, as follows: many of these council members had no doubt voted to stone Stephen to death, with Paul present, years before, Act 7:51-60.
2) “Men and brethren,” (andres adelphoi) “Ye responsible men, brethren,” in the Jewish flesh, ye national brethren. Paul considered himself always to be a member of the true faith of the theocracy of Israel and interested in the highest spiritual good of her people, Rom 9:1-3; Rom 10:1-4; 1Co 9:19-22.
3) “I have lived in all good conscience toward God,” (ego pase suneidesei agathe pepoliteumati to theo) “I have lived (deported myself) in all good conscience toward God,” or lived before God as a God-fearing citizen of the commonwealth of Israel. He asserts that he is a man of integrity, Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Ti 1:13-18.
4) “Until this day.” (achri tautes tes hemeres) “Until this day, ” as I stand before you all. It is this manner of a life of integrity to which all believers, and members of the Lord’s church, His true witnesses, are called, 1Pe 3:15-16; Mat 5:15-16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
1. Looking earnestly. Paul beginneth with the testimony of a good conscience, that all the whole multitude may understand that he is unjustly charged with such an heinous offense, as if he had gone about to overthrow the worship of God. It may be, indeed, that a man may offend of ignorance, who will not otherwise be a contemner either of God or of religion; but Paul meant at the first, only with this excuse, to mollify their nettled minds, that he might the better be heard; for it had been in vain for him to have defended himself, so long as that opinion did stick in the minds of the priests, that he was a wicked revolt, [apostate]. Therefore, before he enter the cause, he excuseth himself of that crime, not only that he may purchase favor by that desire which he had to live godlily, but also that he may prevent false accusations, or at least that he may refute unjust prejudices which might have made against him, wherewith he saw the whole multitude infected and corrupted. We know not what he meant to say besides. Notwithstanding, this preface teacheth that no man can rightly handle the doctrine of godliness, unless the fear of God reign and bear the chief sway in him. And now, though he give not the priests so honorable a title here as he did a little before, when he stood upon the steps of the fortress, yet he calleth them brethren, giving them that honor, not because they deserve it, but that he may testify that he is not the cause of the breach of friendship. −
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE FURY OF PREJUDICE
Act 22:22 to Act 23:5
OUR introduction of a chapter at this point is like the placing of many of the chapters of the Bible. It was without other occasion than convenience. The twenty-second chapter could easily have been treated in its entirety. In very truth, the remaining portion of this Book of Acts involves so continuous a narrative, that chapters were not only non-needful to the sense, but rather an impertinence. However, the average reader is short-breathed and demands many pauses or resting places, and to that fact we accommodate ourselves in this whole series. Furthermore, there is a profit in the introduction of paragraphs, and that is in the profit of more thorough study. It is better to abide over a few verses until they have surrendered up their secrets and borne their adequate testimony, than to skim over a whole volume, sounding its depths at no point.
The verses we elect to treat here will compass a complete presentation of our theme, The Fury of Prejudice, and their proper analysis shows The Fury Excited, The Sufficient Defense, and The Farce of a Hearing.
THE FURY EXCITED
It was roused by the use of a word.
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.
And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,
The chief captain commanded Him to be brought into the castle, and hade that he should he examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him (Act 22:22-24).
The opening phrase is extremely suggestive, And they gave him audience unto this word. This word is not the Bible in this case. It is not even the speech in which the Apostle Paul had rehearsed his personal experience, but it is the single word with which he concluded what he had to say. Gentiles is the word. That word was to the Jew what a red flag is to a bull. It infuriated. He did not believe that any true apostle or prophet could be sent to the Gentiles. He hated the Gentile. The Gentile was to him a dog, and dogs are not proper subjects for a gospel. The only religion they could possibly have would be the Jewish religion, and the only way that they could come into that was already prescribed in the form of Jewish ceremonials, and to speak of such a thing as getting them in another way was a flagrant offence.
It is a marvel how far prejudice can carry a man and what fury the use of an offensive word can excite. Fundamental is a good word. It is doubtful if there is a better one in the whole dictionary. That is true whether you take its original meaningthe foundation or ground work, or its historical employmentindispensable, primary, essential, basaland it is even more true when you apply it to the great underlying facts of revelation. And yet, how many men there are that grow red in the face the moment you pronounce the word fundamental, and their fury knows little or no balance!
Prejudice is, of all mental attitudes, the most blinding, the most deafening, the most deranging. It has eyes but sees not, ears, but hears not. Such hearts have waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted (Mat 13:15). No man is in healthy mental or spiritual condition when the use of a word flings him into a frenzy.
This fury voiced itself in a threat. Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air. There are some states of mind that a true Christian cannot understand. If he ever had such, regeneration so effectually removed them that even their memory is obliterated, and chief among them stands this mental attitude that would murder the man who does not speak an acceptable shibboleth.
Christianity is not a non-controversial, compromising, easy-going religion. It has been polemical from the first. It has stood ever ready to resist falsehoods, even unto death; but Christianity has never persecuted or sought to crucify its opponents. In all those cases where church men have been parties to martyrdom, we have a positive proof that they were members of the visible body only, and not members of His body.
Paul is supposed to have been beheaded at Rome. Peter is reported to have been crucified with head down. Jesus Himself hung on Calvarys Cross. Few of His direct Apostles fared any better, but there is no record that any one of them ever sought the imprisonment, scourging or crucifixion of his opponent. In this connection we want to calm the fears of modernists. They are constantly saying that, as the church in olden time killed men who did not agree with it, so the fundamentalist movement of the present day will yet imprison and otherwise persecute those who deny the validity of the Word and the Deity of Christ. Their speech is without occasion, their fears are utterly groundless.
The fundamentals of the Christian faith demand another attitude entirely. Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude all joined their pens in defending the fundamentals of the Christian faith against the skeptics, atheists and rationalists of their day, but not one of them ever drew the sword against skeptics, employed a prison with which to silence their speech, or even asked a civil government to condemn or even call it into court. Threats then, as now, emanated from the opposers of the Gospel and the enemies of Christ, and not from the defenders of either. It still remains so and so it will be till the end of time.
There are many persecutions taking place today. Faithful men are being removed from pastorates by ecclesiastical superiors, or driven from the same by local celebrities. Ministers families are being left without food and clothing. By an ingenious ecclesiastical system church doors are being shut in the faces of those who have been forced to seek a change. But practically every bit of this emanates from the enemies of Christ and the opponents of the Gospel, who, like the high priest of the text, have secured controlling positions in the modern church, but who give little or no evidence of ever having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, or having any vital relationship to that spiritual Body His True Church.
These opposers accomplished Pauls arrest. 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 (Act 22:24).
An arrest is an easy thing to accomplish. With courts constituted as they are now, an unjust condemnation is often secured; but thats a thousandfold more seldom than an unjust arrest. The people of America would be amazed if they kept tab on their county prisons. A political revolt would be born if police records were an open book and the public studied them. There are not scores, but hundreds of cases every night in the year of men arrested, flung into prison without charge and dismissed the next morning. Their officer had a suspicion and this gave him a chance to confirm it, if possible, and failing, he quietly told the jailer to let the individual go, and in nine cases out of ten, being men and women of little or no means and few friends, no disturbance follows. They quietly slip away, glad to be out of the lockup and free from the sight of the threatening face of an officer.
One might imagine that this antique method of examining, by scourging, belonged to a period twenty centuries dead; but not so. It goes under a new name nowthe third degreeand there are literally thousands of men and women treated after the same manner in our supposedly Christian civilization. The third degree seems to be growing in favor with policemen. By keeping their suspect awake three and four days at a stretch, plying him with questions confusing in character and multitudinous in number, smiting him with the open hand, or cracking him over the head with a billy, or beating him with a broad strap, they bring from their victim confessions that are pure fabrications, given only because they were demanded and in the interest of escape from further suffering.
Time moves, but civilization does not necessarily improve. The philosophy of evolution fails to find an illustration anywhere. The state employs more veneer now than it did in Pauls day, and the religiously bigoted and intolerant are more careful in conduct and in speech. They both bring forth after their kind; the species does not change.
Let us turn now to
THE SUFFICIENT DEFENSE
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?
When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
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 (Act 22:25-29).
His first defense was on the basis of citizenship. Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Christianity, then, does not deprive a man of the rights of citizenship, else Paul would not have appealed to his Roman birth. How strange that good men are so often and so easily deceived! Present vendors of infidelity have had a triumph at this very point. In a dozen states of the Union very recently Christian citizens have sought to save their children from being steeped in a philosophy false to natures facts, inimical to Christianity itself and a growing menace to good government, and in every instance they have been practically told that a Christian had no citizenship rights. To be sure, the phraseology has not followed that exact form. They have said to him: Dont mix church and state; dont try to compel by law any peculiar views; dont use physical and political means to obtain mental and spiritual ends; dont seek to correct society by mere legislation; dont try to convert the state into an advocate of your personal philosophy. And, strange to say, this fallacious argument has seemed sound to thousands of superficial thinkers.
It is a fact that a Christian is a citizen of Heaven, and that, in the truest sense, he is a stranger and pilgrim in the earth; but it is also a fact that his heavenly citizenship does not deprive him of his earthly citizenship, and that when earthly powers seek to oppress, persecute and impose upon, he has a perfect right to appeal to the State. The law is intended for his defense; legislation is enacted in his behalf.
There are those who would have every man in the state made safe by law except the Christian, and leave him to the mercy of any civil criminal or destructive critic. But the motive of such is easily understood. They are out to secure a triumph for their particular philosophy and they care not on whose rights they trample if only their atheism triumphs. The faithful of today have an obligation to Paul for the example here set of employing his citizens rights.
He caused the chief captain instant concern. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, with a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born (Act 22:27-28).
There are many political appointees who have no respect for the church and no regard for a Christian profession, but who are very sensitive to the will of the state. These men feed at the state table and are gowned at state expense, and their families are looked upon as state favorites, and their station in life is determined by state religion, and what the state says concerns them. Very promptly and quite seriously, Tell me, art thou a Roman?
The apostles answer ended the opposition. He said, Yea. Mark the result. 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 (Act 22:29).
There are many occasions when the enemies of the truth strike a snag. More than once the Master Himself silenced critics. When they brought the woman taken in adultery to Him for condemnation and demanded her stoning, he suddenly confused the whole company of them by asking that the sinless one should cast the first stone. He looked, and lo, they were gone.
There are fair propositions that make further procedure difficult and render retirement hasty. There are apparent successes which prove to be signal defeats. It is one thing to howl against a Christian and to affirm that he is unfit to live, but it is another thing to unjustly scourge an honorable citizen. Thousands have done the first and only suffered in their sordid spirits for the same. But hundreds have attempted the second to discover themselves legally entangled and justly endangered. One conscience-free man, knowing his rights, can fling fear into the heart of both court and crowd and compel them to search for the way of escape. Such a search here results in
THE FARCE OF A HEARING
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 (Act 22:30).
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest?
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people (Act 23:1-5).
Analyze this record and your interest will center further around Paul and the high priest, into whose hands he is committed.
There was a time and place set for Pauls trial.
That act constituted a show of fairness, but in nature it was foul. The chief captain knew that the charges against Paul were forged and should have set him free, but with an eye to political preferment, he feared to do that lest Pauls enemies should not support him in his next candidacy. Officials pushed into a corner often pretend fairness by the calling of a council. A little investigation will show that in nine cases out of ten it is a shadow pretense. When the council convenes it will be an ex parte one. It will be made of men whose predisposition is known, whose judgment is prejudiced and fixed.
How seldom has a minister of the Gospel ever had a fair hearing! In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred his trial was brought about by his enemies, and the object from the first was not to find out the truth, but to effect a conviction. To this end they will do what was done in the case of the Masters ministry, suborn witnesses, and, as in His case also, trump up charges, and the findings of the court will not express justice, but voice a predetermined judgment.
The minister may be the equal, or, as in this case, the infinitely superior of his judges. But if so, he dare not so much as refer to the fact that he dwells on a plane of equal social level with them, equal mental acumen, equal spiritual attainment, for if he do, they will smite him as one guilty of an assumption, as they smote the Apostle when he addressed them Men and brethren.
It is always interesting, and almost ludicrously interesting, to see the man who gets into an ecclesiastical or political position of judgment, take on an air of superiority. There never was a policeman so ignorant or so gross that he did not resent every word of defense that the highest citizen might speak, in case that gross officer has decided to criticise or arrest him.
Pauls retort is that of a true man. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law (Act 23:3)?
We love that flash of anger, that burst of righteous indignation. There are people who think that a Christian is never to know anything other than soft words or cringing spirit. We do not believe with them. God is angry. Anger under certain conditions is a positive virtue. It is a proof of character. It is the voice of righteousness itself. The man who can permit one of his fellows, who happens to be an official, to perform an outrage against him, to play the hypocrite and pretend to represent the law, and yet, in the very pretense violate the law itself and say nothing, is not a man. He is a mouse.
Beyond all doubt, Peter made a mistake when he drew his sword and smote off the high priests ear, but what red-blooded man does not admire Peter a thousand fold more in that moment of his error, than he admires him, when, a few hours later, he is cringing in the presence of the high priest and friends, and with a mock modesty meekness is saying, I do not know the Man.
It is a fact that Jesus rebuked Peter for the use of the sword, but it is also a fact that when Peters repentance came, it was not that deed that grieved him most. It was his cowardly conduct, his cringing behavior. Aye, that is what sent him to his knees broken in heart, and left him for hours and days without God and without hope.
And yet, that Paul was not a mere fire-brand is proven in what follows. And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people (Act 23:4-5).
This was the Apostles respect for authority. A man has a right to respect authority, a right to regard office, a right to see in the individual official the state itself, and respect it as such. But there is often a difference between the office and the official. The governors office is a good one and an honorable one and should be respected. But when you have a governor in the office who is a charlatan, you may, at one and the same time, condemn the official and respect the office.
A worthless president does not prove that the state should know no such an individual. Paul is here conforming his conduct to what he will later voice in one of his Epistles. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves (Heb 13:17). And again, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom 13:1-3).
The difference between a first-class Christian citizen and an anarchist is at this point. .A Christian citizen will in his heart condemn the hypocrite in office and seek to fill the same with another and a better man, while the anarchist would abolish the office itself and leave the people without government, just as the Christian citizen believes in a ruler of the universe, and the spiritual anarchist prefers a universe without God.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 23:1. Earnestly beholding, or looking steadfastly on, describes the eager, anxious gaze with which the apostle was accustomed to scan those to whom he spokeperhaps arising from his infirmity of sight (Alford), but more from the intense emotion of his spirit (see Act. 14:9, and compare Act. 7:55.) Men and brethren. Or simply brethren (see also Act. 23:5-6.) The omission of fathers (Act. 22:1) was probably intended to suggest that he felt himself on an equality with the council. I have lived. properly signifies to discharge ones civil and political duties, but as used here and elsewhere (Php. 1:27) by Paul, includes his whole moral and religious conduct, or his behaviour in every respect. In all good conscience.I.e., in every respect, in every instance with a good conscience, or with a consciousness of integrity and sincerity (compare 2Ti. 1:3).
Act. 23:2. The high priest Ananias.Not the individual of that name mentioned earlier (Act. 4:6; compare Luk. 3:2; Joh. 18:13), but the son of Nebedus, who succeeded Camydus, or Camithus, was nominated to the office by Herod, King of Chalcis, in A.D. 48, and entered on his duties in the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (Jos., Ant., XX. Act. 23:2). He was deposed from his office not long before the departure of Felix (Ant., XX. viii. 8), but still retained great power, which he used violently and lawlessly (Ibid., ix. 2). He was eventually assassinated by the Sicarii (Wars, II. xvii. 9). Them that stood by him were not members of the council or spectators, but most likely the servants in attendance, as in Christs trial (Joh. 18:22; compare Luk. 19:24). To smite him on the mouth.Compare Joh. 18:22; Jer. 20:1-2. This mode of enjoining silence is practised in the East at the present day (Hackett). For a Jew to order a Jew to be struck on the cheek was peculiarly offensive. He that strikes the cheek of an Israelite strikes, as it were, the cheek of the Shekinah, for it is said (Pro. 20:25), He that strikes a man (i.e., an Israelite, who alone deserves the name) strikes the Holy One (Farrar).
Act. 23:3. Thou whited wall!Thou hypocrite! Like the similar phrase, whited sepulchre (Mat. 23:27). The prophecy here uttered against Ananiasnot a wish (Kuinoel)was fulfilled (see above).
Act. 23:4. To revile Gods high priest was certainly forbidden by the law of Moses (Exo. 22:28).
Act. 23:5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest.These words have been interpreted as meaning either:
1. That the apostle refused to acknowledge Ananias as high priest; either because he had procured the dignity by money (Grotius) or by usurpation (Lightfoot), and was therefore not the high priest in reality.
2. That the apostle declined to recognise as Gods high priest one who behaved so insolently as Ananias (Calvin, Baumgarten, Stier, Meyer, Besser, Holtzmann), in which case his language would be ironical.
3. That he spoke without due reflection, and therefore rashly, and now meant to recall his words (Bengel, Wetstein; Olshausen, Ewald, Wordsworth, Hackett).
4. That at the moment he was not acquainted with the person of the high priest, Ananias having been installed into office during his absence from the city (Chrysostom, Beza, Lechler).
5. That when he spoke he did not really know by whom the order to smite him had been given (Farrar)which might well have been the case if his vision was as defective as is commonly supposed (Alford, Plumptre), or if Ananias was not presiding (Zckler), because the Sanhedrim was sitting at the bidding of the Roman captain (Lechler), or if, though Ananias did preside, Paul did not know he was the high priest (who was not always required to preside: compare Schrers Gesch. des Jud. Volks, p. 156 ff), but thought him an ordinary member of the court (Lechler, Plumptre). Of these, the first and second may be set aside as improbable, if not unworthy of the apostle. The third may contain an element of truth, to this extent, that the apostle ought, perhaps, to have been sure who the person was against whom he uttered so severe a prophecy. That he knew and spoke in anger, in an outburst of natural indignation (Conybeare and Howson), we think unlikely in the case of one
(1) who had just been claiming that he had lived before God in all good conscience up till that day (Act. 23:1);
(2) who had the day before exhibited such presence of mind;
(3) who possessed, along with his brother apostles, the promise of the Holy Spirits help as to what he should say when brought before kings and councils; and
(4) who afterwards, when confessing his wrong-doings before the council, made no mention of this supposed ebullition of wrath (Act. 24:20-21). In our judgment this last consideration is fatal to the theory that Paul spoke unadvisedly with his lips. The fourth and fifth explanations appear in all respects the most satisfactory. It is written.The passage (Exo. 22:28) applies to any civil magistrate as well as to the high priest.
Act. 23:6. Sadducees.See Act. 4:1; Act. 5:17. Pharisees.See Act. 5:34. For both see Homiletical Analysis. Men and brethren.Or, simply brethren. The son of a Pharisee.According to best codices, a son of Pharisees. Of, or touching, the hope and resurrection of the dead.I.e., touching a hope (which I have), even that there shall be a resurrection of the dead (compare Act. 24:15; Act. 24:21; and see Act. 17:31). Baur, followed by Holtzmann, objects to the apostles statement as untruthful, since he must have known that the matter for which he was called in question was not his preaching of a resurrection from the dead, but his teaching with regard to the law, that it was not binding on Gentile Christians. But in point of fact the apostles statement was substantially correct, that whatever was the ostensible ground of complaint against him, the real cause of his apprehension was his witness concerning Christs resurrectionsince out of that rose the altered relations of both Jews and Gentiles toward the law. Besides, had the apostle here deliberately uttered an untruth, or been guilty of an evasion, it is hardly likely that the recollection of this would not have troubled his conscience afterwards when his remembrance of having set his judges at variance did (Act. 24:20-21).
Act. 23:7. A dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees.Here again Baur can scarcely imagine that a single expression undesignedly (Baur himself holds it was deliberately) let fall by the apostle could have kindled so fierce a fire as to blind both parties to their own interests, and Weizscker thinks it far from being in the least probable that Paul should have attempted to set the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other, or that he should in point of fact have succeeded in doing so; but Josephus (Life, 29) relates a similar procedure of himself when his life was threatened at Tariche, which was followed by a similar result, the division of his enemies, which ended in his life being spared.
Act. 23:8. The Sadducees denied the doctrine of a resurrection and the existence of either angel or spirit. They have been called materialists. But there is no proof that they denied what in our day we call the invisible world. They were only opposed to new speculations. They believed firmly in Mosaism, and adhered to the letter of the Scriptures. The resurrection, they said, was not supported by a single text in the law. The Sadducees, for the same reasons (the silence of Moses), discouraged Messianic hopes. The Sadducees were the living proof that the Old Dispensation was drawing to a close (Stapfer, Palestine in the Time of Christ, pp. 319, 320). The Pharisees confessed both. They had formulated, under the Maccabees, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, by which they did not intend merely the survival of the soul, the immaterial part of man, or even of a spiritual body, as St. Paul afterwards teaches, but a reunion with the very body which had been laid down (ibid., p. 318). The Pharisees believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this lifethe vicious being detained in an everlasting prison, but the virtuous having power to revive and live again. The Sadducees hold that souls die with the bodies (Jos., Ant., XVIII. i. 3, 4).
Act. 23:9. The scribes should probably be some of the scribes. But if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him.Supply, What then? The allusion obviously is to Pauls vision in the temple (Act. 22:17). The best texts omit let us not fight against God. They were probably an interpolation from Gamaliels speech (Act. 23:9).
Act. 23:10. The fear of the chiliarch was naturally heightened by his knowledge that he was responsible for the life of a Roman citizen (Plumptre).
Act. 23:11. The oldest authorities omit Paul. For the phrase be of good cheer, in which the verb is (Christs), compare Mat. 9:2; Mat. 14:27; Mar. 6:50; Joh. 16:33. For the same phrase with a different verb, (Pauls), see Act. 27:22; Act. 27:25. The vision announced the close of the first and the beginning of the second of Pauls proposed journeys (Act. 19:21).
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 23:1-10
The Scene in the Council Chamber; or, Pauls Doubtful Strategy
I. An exalted exordium.
1. Delivered in a historic place. If in the usual court room of the Sanhedrim, the Hall Gazith, in one of the temple chambers, then it was probably the spot on which Stephen had stood twenty-two years before, when Paul heard him deliver his great apology (Act. 6:12); on which the apostles had stood when Gamaliel, a Pharisee, spoke up in their defence (Act. 5:34); and on which Christ had stood when Caiaphas pronounced him worthy of death (Mat. 26:57). If in some apartment in the city to which their meetings had been transferred about twenty-six years before this (see Critical Remarks on Act. 22:30), it was still the spot on which many a solemn trial had taken place. Men in general, and speakers in particular, are always more or less affected by the associations which cluster round the spots on which they stand.
2. Presented to a venerable court. The highest ecclesiastical and religious tribunal of the country, composed of priests and elders and scribes (Act. 4:5-6), belonging to the two principal parties of the day, the Pharisees and the Sadducees (see Critical Remarks, and below), and presided over by the high priest of the time, Ananias, the son of Nebedus.
3. Spoken with intense earnestness. Realising at once the sanctity of the place, the dignity of the court, and the solemnity of the occasion, the apostle fixed his eyes with steadfast gaze upon his auditors and began to pour out upon them the transcendent thoughts with which his soul was laden.
4. Begun with dignified self-respect. Not cringing before them, as if he either acknowledged himself a culprit or desired to fawn upon them with flattery, but dropping the term fathers which he had employed on the castle stairs (Act. 22:1), and addressing them as an equal, as a former Sanhedrist to his ancient colleaguesbrothers! The man who is conscious of his innocence has no need to hang his head like a bulrush, or speak with bated breath and whispered humbleness, or forget the native nobility of his manhood.
5. Summed up in a noble confession. Not prompted by self-esteem or rendered possible by a self-indulgent criticism, but dictated by an inward consciousness of its truth. A confession that all his life longnot even excluding his persecuting days (Act. 26:9)he had studied, and, so far as he could speak for himself, with a considerable measure of success, to preserve a good conscience, which could only have been done by following its dictates, in all his relationships in life, at all times, and under all circumstances, aiming at the service and glory of God (2Ti. 1:3; Heb. 13:18).
II. An unmannerly interruption.
1. From whom it proceeded. From the high priest who presided over the council, Ananias, the son of Nebedus, who was appointed to fill this ecclesiastical office by Herod of Chalcis and whose tenure continued from A.D. 4759, when he was superseded by Ismael, the son of Phabi. Having lived after his deposition till the outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66, he was murdered as a friend of the Romans by the revolutionaries. During the last years of his life, even after the demission of his office, he ruled like a tyrant in Jerusalem. His haughty disposition revealed itself in his behaviour towards Paul (see Schrer in Riehms Handwrterbuch des Biblischen Altertums, ii. 62, art. Ananias). Ananias says Besser (Bibel Stunden, III. ii. 504), was the third high priest whom the Spirit, poured out from the throne by the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, called to repentance. But, like his predecessor Joseph, he was a legitimate successor of Caiaphas.
2. How it was expressed. By commanding the officials of the Sanhedrim who were standing by to smite Paul upon the mouth. To the arrogant prelate it seemed unendurablein fact, an intolerable presumption and unspeakable insolencethat one who was arraigned before them as a prisoner should either call them brothers! or advance for himself the claim of innocence. The mouth that uttered such words should be stopped. Whether the attendants obeyed or not is uncertain. If they hesitated for a moment (Besser) the probability is that they ultimately carried out their masters command and inflicted on the apostle the same brutal insult that had once been offered to his Master (Joh. 18:22), and long before to the prophet Jeremiah (Act. 20:1-2).
3. What response it evoked. Unlike his Master who, when one of the officers standing by struck him, meekly answered, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me? (Joh. 18:22-23), Paul replied with an indignant outburstGod shall smite thee, thou whited wall; and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law.
(1) So far as Ananias was concerned the language was both strikingly correct and richly deserved. Sitting there as Jehovahs representative, clothed, perhaps, in his white priestly raiment and pretending to be a judge of offences against Heavens law, he was little better than a whited wall, beautiful without, but coarse within, daubed over with untempered mortaran expression which perhaps had been borrowed from the similar phrase of Jesus Christ, whited sepulchre (Mat. 23:27; Luk. 11:44), and had become current among the early Christians as a fit designation for hypocrites, of whom Ananias was a magnificent specimen. That the phrase did not express a malediction or imprecation must be assumed, since such would have been altogether unbecoming on the lips of one who professed himself a follower of Jesus, and who had claimed to have lived up till that moment in all good conscience before God. The terrible utterance is best understood as a prophetic denunciation (Zckler), which, according to Josephus (Wars, II. xvii. 19), was ultimately fulfilled, the Sicarii or assassins in the revolutionary war having entered Jerusalem and, after burning Ananiass palace, dragged him, along with his brother Hezekiah, from concealment and murdered both. The rebuke as to his judging Paul contrary to the law was thoroughly deserved.
(2) So far as Paul was concerned, there was nothing wrong in either of the statements, unless it was wrong to denounce a scoundrel like Ananias, and foretell his fate. If anything was wrong about the utterance it was the passion (if there was such) with which it was accompanied. It was certainly some disadvantage to Paul that (although provoked and unjustly smitten) he called the high priest whited wall; he was glad to excuse it by his ignorance. We may not be too bold or too forward to speak in a good matter, lest we overshoot (Trapp.) But is it not rather easily assumed that Paul lost his temper and burst into a rage? Had he done so, it seems to us Paul would have not only acknowledged his offence when he cooled downwhich some say he did (but see below, and Critical Remarks on Act. 23:5)but when recalling this scene afterwards would not have omitted to mention this unchristian outburst (if it was such) as one of the mistakes he had committedwhich, however, he did not (see Act. 24:21).
4. How it ended. Challenged by the attendants for reviling, as they called his scathing sentence, Gods high priest, as they styled the painted and decorated hypocrite who presided over the assembly, Paul replied that he wist not that the person whom he addressed was the high priest. This statement is generally interpreted as an acknowledgment on Pauls part of having spoken unadvisedly with his lips. It ought, however, rather to be accepted in its plain and literal sense, as an intimation that, from some cause or otherdefective sight, or an uncertainty as to whether the president of the court was the high priesthe did not know the exalted dignity of the person he addressed (see Critical Remarks). Had he known that Ananias was the high priest, rather than seem to violate the law of MosesThou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy peoplehe would have borne the indignity in silence. This does not appear to us as an admission that he had spoken rashly, except perhaps in so far as he ought to have made sure who the object of his denunciation was before launching against him such a scathing judgment and rebuke. But the judgment and the rebuke fell on the right head, and Paul, if he erred, only showed he was still a man and not the equal of his Divine Master (see Hints).
III. A dexterous strategy.
1. The occasion of it. The mixed character of the council, which consisted of Pharisees and Sadducees.
(1) The Pharisees at the time of Christ formed a compact, important, and influential party inside the Jewish peoplerepresenting that tendency which was generally peculiar to post-exilic Judaism, and which in them (the Pharisees) received its sharpest and at the same time its most correct expression, viz., the tendency to transform religion into merely external legal service. That tendency drew after it as a necessary consequence this, that the external action rather than the moral disposition became the decisive factor in determining the quality of an action. Hence the Pharisees laid great stress upon oral legal tradition as supplementing the written law. The Pharisees were the democratic, popular party in Palestine.
(2) The Sadducees, deriving their name originally, it is believed, from Zadok the high priest in Davids and Solomons times, consisted principally of the members and adherents of the high priestly family, and formed in consequence the aristocratic party in Jerusalem, whose chief distinction lay in thisthat they rejected the Pharisaic principle of legalism and with that the oral tradition which their rivals valued.
(3) Their dogmatic differences were principally these: that the Pharisees believed in and the Sadducees denied, the resurrection of the body and future punishment, the existence of angels and spirits, the doctrine of an overruling providence, which superintended and controlled the seemingly free actions of men (see Schrer in Riehms Handwrterbuch, arts. Phariser and Sadduccer; and Langhanss Biblische Geschichte und Literatur, ii. 431435).
2. The nature of it. A sudden exclamation by Paul that he was a Pharisee and a son of Pharisees, and that he was that day being called in question for the hope and resurrection of the dead (see Critical Remarks). Both statements were true, although the latter may not have been so obvious to his hearers as it was to himself. It was undoubtedly a clever stroke, and perhaps illustrated that serpentine wisdom combined with dovelike harmlessness which Christ recommended to His followers (Mat. 10:16). Religion, says Trapp, doth not call us to a weak simplicity, but allows us as much of the serpent as of the dove. The dove without the serpent is easily caught; the serpent without the dove stings deadly. Their match makes themselves secure and many happy.
3. The effect of it. It divided the circle of his enemies into two opposing camps. Some of the scribes of the Pharisees party immediately protested that they found no evil in Paul. If a spirit or an angel had spoken to him, what then? That was by no means impossible or incredible; and, if it really was so, it might be dangerous to meddle with the prisoner. Of course to the aristocratic Sadducean party, who regarded spirits and angels as nursery legends, creatures of the fancy, such a suggestion sounded ridiculous. The deeply seated antagonism which parted the two sects rose to the surface and flamed out into angry dissension. In their violent attempts, on the one hand to release, and on the other part to detain, Paul, he was like to be torn in pieces between them.
4. The end of it. The commandant of the castle, who had once more got to hear of the turmoil and feared for his prisoners safety, despatched a company of soldiers to the council chamber to rescue the apostle and fetch him into the fortress.
5. The rightness of it. That the apostles bold stroke terminated in his release may seem to many to be justification enough of the course adopted; but on subsequent reflection Paul himself was not perfectly sure about it (Act. 24:21). At least, without expressly granting that he had done wrong, he owned himself ready to admit that his action might wear the appearance of wrong. Possibly he was not himself certain that he had not erred from that straight path of conscientious duty he had up till that moment endeavoured to tread. His exclamation was perhaps secretly dictated less by an effort to vindicate himself or advance his Masters cause, than by an endeavour to set his judges at loggerheads. If so, he would himself pronounce it wrong. What a sensitive conscience the apostle must have had!
IV. A sweet consolation.
1. Its opportune arrival. The night following that exciting scene in the council, which again had ensued on a day of equal agitation in the temple and on the castle stairs. At a time when the apostles soul and body both were exhausted by the terrible conflict through which he had passed, and when perhaps through natural reaction he might have been disposed to subside into deep depression. But mans extremity is ever Gods opportunity (compare Act. 27:24).
2. Its heavenly origin. It came direct from the Lordi.e., the risen and exalted Christ, who instead of sending consolation to His wearied servant by a messenger, either human (2Ki. 4:42), or angelic (1Ki. 19:5), came Himself, stood by that servant, discovering His presence and speaking to that servant with His own lips. This circumstance showed both the importance of the occasion and the need of Paul.
3. Its cheering burden. It was practically an assurance that neither would his life be taken nor his career ended by this outrageous assault upon his person. The purpose he had formed would be fulfilled. As he had testified for his Master in Jerusalem, he would live to do the like in Rome (see Hints on Act. 23:2).
Learn
1. That a good conscience is a strong support in time of trouble.
2. That good consciences are not always fully enlightened.
3. That mistakes, when discovered, should be frankly acknowledged.
4. That good men should study not to let their good be evil spoken of.
5. That wicked men who hate each other often combine against the good.
6. That materialism is an old heresy.
7. That a good man may defend himself by all honest means.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 23:1. A Good Conscience.
I. From what it proceeds.
1. True faith in Christ, which obtains the forgiveness of sins.
2. The assurance of Divine grace and eternal life.
3. The renewal of the Holy Ghost to a new life and conduct.
4. The faithful performance of our calling.
II. To what it contributes.
1. The possession of inward peace before God.
2. The establishment of the heart in the hour of danger.
3. The strengthening of the soul for the performance of duty.
Note.Those who attribute to Christianity a gloomy condemnation of, and a certain injustice towards, the natural man, and that which is good in him, or even those real devotees who, going beyond the truth, think badly of and inveigh against themselves and their former life, may learn here from Pauls example that a regenerate man may rejoice before God and man even in his former relatively good conscience when in a position of error and sin, if his present conscience in Christ bears him witness that he has not belonged to the class of gross hypocrites.Stier.
Act. 23:2. The Three Ananiases in Acts.
I. Ananias of Jerusalem, the insincere disciple (Act. 5:1); or, the detection and doom of false professors. A warning to Church members.
II. Ananias of Damascus, the true disciple (Act. 9:10; Act. 22:12); or, the ministry and reward of a humble Christian. An encouragement to Christian workers.
III. Ananias also of Jerusalem, the Sadducean high priest; or, the criminality and judgment of those who, acting as Gods vicegerents, nevertheless misrepresent Him. An admonition to Christian ministers.
Ananias and Paul. A parallel and a contrast.
I. Resemblances.Both were
1. Men. Probably both were (certainly one was) possessed of intellect and education.
2. Jews. Members of the Hebrew nation and of the covenanted people.
3. Representatives. The one of Jehovah, whose priest he was; the other of Jesus, whose apostle he claimed to be.
II. Differences.In their
1. Offices. The one a high priest, the other an apostle, as above stated.
2. Characters. The one a hypocrite, the other sincere.
3. Beliefs. The one a Sadducee, the other a Pharisee.
4. Positions. The one judge, the other prisoner.
5. Conduct. The one violent, the other resentful.
III. Lessons.
1. The differences between men are commonly more than their resemblances.
2. The best men do not always occupy the highest social positions in life.
3. The providence that makes prisoners of moral princes like Paul, and judges of mean reptiles like Ananias, though not wrong, is nevertheless mysterious.
4. Well-nigh intolerable are
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes.
Shakespeare.
Act. 23:3. Gods Judgment on Whited Walls.
I. A striking characterisation of hypocritical professors.Whited walls. Holy offices, spiritual titles, priestly dignities, are nothing else than white lime, by which the internal impurity of a carnal heart is covered.
II. A solemn prediction of Divine judgment on such professors.God shall smite them! If not by temporal calamities, by eternal punishments. In the great day of the Lord the secrets of all hearts shall be exposed.
III. A significant instance of moral retribution.What will eventually happen in the case of hypocritical professors will also be the fate of other sinners. Their iniquity will be recompensed. Their wickedness will return upon their own pate.
Act. 23:5. Sins of Ignorance
I. Are not permissible.No excuse for a violation of the law of God to plead that it was done in ignorance.
II. May be disastrous in their consequences.To the individual who commits them, and to those who are affected by them.
III. Should always be frankly confessed when discovered by him who has committed them, as was the case with Paul.
IV. May be forgiven.As was the inadvertent mistake of the apostle.
Act. 23:6. The Hope (of Israel) and the Resurrection of the Dead.
I. The hope of Israel involved the resurrection of the dead.See Psa. 16:9; Psa. 17:15; Psa. 49:15; Isa. 25:8; Isa. 26:19; Eze. 37:12; Dan. 12:2; Hos. 13:14.
II. The hope of Israel was guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.This proved that a resurrection of the dead was possible, and would become actual in the case of the followers of Christ. See Act. 4:2; Joh. 11:25; Joh. 14:19; Rom. 8:10; 1Co. 15:23.
III. The hope of Israel and the resurrection of the dead form the burden of the gospel message.Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:28).
IV. The hope of Israel and the resurrection of the dead will reach their culmination at the last day.See Joh. 5:25; Joh. 5:28; Joh. 6:39; Joh. 6:44; Joh. 6:54; Joh. 11:23-24; 2Co. 5:14; Php. 3:21.
Act. 23:1-6 with Joh. 18:19-24, Jesus and Paul before the Sanhedrim; or, the Master and the disciple before unrighteous judges.
I. Wherein the Master and the disciple resembled each other.
1. The same unmerited disgrace was inflicted on both.
2. Both maintained their Divinely bestowed dignity.
II. Wherein the Master was above the disciple.
1. The holy self-consciousness of Jesus was more than the good conscience of Paul.
2. The calm answer of Jesus was more heavenly than Pauls human vehemence.Gerok.
Spots in the Sun; or, some things about Pauls character that call for explanation.
I. Magnificent self-conceit, or spiritual pride.I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Does not this seem a pretty high claim for even a Paul to advance? Does it not come tolerably near the violation of one of his own precepts (Rom. 12:3)? Justifies it not Pauls statement that he was a Pharisee? What was it, if not a manifestation of that self-righteousness so vehemently condemned in them? Well
1. Paul could not have meant to assert that he had lived a sinless or blameless life (see Rom. 3:9-10), either before his conversion (see 1Ti. 1:13) or after it (Php. 3:12).
2. Paul was certainly not conscious at the time that he was doing wrong in making such an allegation, as afterwards he was not in the least degree troubled about it (Act. 24:20).
3. Paul could only have signified that he had, throughout his entire career, endeavoured to follow the dictates of his conscience, as he afterwards explained to Timothy (2Ti. 1:3). Possibly in so saying Paul may have been mistaken; but a mistake cannot be catalogued as a sin.
II. Unchristian anger, or lack of meekness.God shall smite thee, thou whited wall! Was this like obeying his Masters wordsWhosoever smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mat. 5:39). And what about his own precepts?Be ye angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath (Eph. 4:26); Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath (Rom. 12:19). To these interrogations it may be answered
1. That anger is not always sinful, and, if ever there was an instance in which it was justifiable, it surely was when Ananias, Gods vicegerent, commanded Paul to be unjustly smitten.
2. That even Christ did not abstain from complaint when unjustly smitten by Annas (see Joh. 18:23).
3. That as Paul was acting under the Spirits guidance when he stood before the Sanhedrim (Luk. 12:12), we cannot doubt that his language about the high priest was justified, and was intended by the Holy Ghost as a Divine judgment, which, ten years later, was fulfilled.
4. That as the Lord, when He appeared to Paul that night, did not find fault with His servant, so neither should we.
III. Deliberate untruth or unworthy equivocation.I wist not that it was the high priest. How could Paul say so when he knew that he was standing before the Sanhedrim? In addition to the last two observations under the preceding charge, which apply to this with equal force, the various explanations offered in the Critical Remarks and Homiletical Analysis may be consulted.
III. Worldly policy, or cunning craft.I am a Pharisee touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. How, it is asked, could Paul describe himself as a Pharisee when he knew that he had utterly and permanently broken with them; and how could he, as a good man, resort to the device and trick of a vulgar demagogue? Well, it is noticeable that this is the only point about Pauls conduct that did cause him uneasiness. Yet
(1) it was perfectly true that he was a Pharisee in so far as he held with them the doctrine of a resurrection; and
(2) if he did throw an apple of discord among his enemies it is not quite clear that this was sinful.
Act. 23:7. Divide and Conquer; or, Pauls Happy Stroke!Surely no defence of Paul for adopting this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of mind. Nor need we hesitate to regard such skill as the fulfilment of the promise, that in such an hour the Spirit of wisdom should suggest words to the accused which the accuser should not be able to gainsay. All prospect of a fair trial was hopeless; he well knew, from fact and present experience, that personal odium would bias his judges, and violence prevail over justice; he, therefore (Neander) uses, in the cause of truth, the maxim so often perverted to the cause of falsehoodDivide el impera.Alford.
Act. 23:8. The Creed of the Sadducee.
I. A hopeless and melancholy creed.
1. No resurrection. Then
(1) Christ is not raised and Christs people will not be raised hereafter. If Christ still exists, and if Christs people do not cease to be at death, in both cases existence is apart from the body.
(2) We are yet in our sins, and Christs death has not been an atonement for the sins of men.
(3) The Christian gospel is a fiction, the Christians hope a delusion, and the Christian himself of all men most miserable (1Co. 15:13-19).
2. No angel. Then
(1) man is the highest created being in the universe, which may say much for man, but does not speak highly for the universe, considering what man has in practice shown himself to be.
(2) Scripture, both old and new, which talks of principalities and powers in the heavenly places and even represents them as having at times appeared to men, must be set down as largely mythical, a conclusion which may not disturb rationalising critics, but which will unquestionably disconcert sincere Christians.
3. No spirit. Then
(1) man is not a composite being, consisting of soul and body, but a simple organism, consisting of body only; and the materialists of to-day and yesterday are right.
(2) There can be no immortality for man, since nothing remains after the earthly house of this tabernacle has been dissolved.
(3) It is doubtful if there can be any Holy Ghost or any God distinct from His works, in which case the dogma of pantheism must be accepted as correct, a result which philosophers might hail as the highest expression of wisdom, but which ordinary reasoners would not be able to distinguish from atheism.
II. An unproved and unproveable creed
1. Unproved. No dialectician, whether scientist or philosopher, has ever demonstrated that man is the most exalted being in the universe, that he consists only of material particles, and that when he dies he can never again return to life. Arguments to that effect have been frequently advanced, but it is doubtful it they have convinced more than a few. At the bar of impartial reason the verdict sounds that the Sadducean thesis has not been established.
2. Unproveable. Except on the hypothesis that there is no personal God, and before one could convert that hypothesis into a truth he must have roamed the universe and demonstrated by personal examination that no such being as God anywhere existedin other words, must himself be God.
III. A refuted and exploded creed.
1. By the consciousness of man, which attests that his I is something totally distinct from his material body, that angels are at least conceivable beings, and that the doctrine of a resurrection is in perfect accord with the deepest instincts of his nature.
2. By the testimony of Scripture, which announces the fact of a resurrection (1Co. 15:52), certifies the existence of angels (Luk. 15:10; Gal. 3:19) and pre-supposes the reality of mans spiritual nature (Job. 32:8; Rom. 8:10).
3. By the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the doctrine of a future resurrection beyond dispute, and in so doing guarantees the existence of mans spirit as a separate entity from his body. If it does not certainly prove that there are angels, it at least shows, by what occurred in connection with the rising of Christ, that there are intelligences in Gods world superior to man.
Note.The inconsistency of the Sadducees, in denying the existence of angels and spirits and yet adhering to the Pentateuch, which contains so many narratives of angelophanies, and practising the temple ritual, which certainly proceeded on the assumption that for man there was a future life, has been thus explained: The great body of the higher priestly class were mere Sadducees and were carried along by one of the great waves of thought which were then passing over the ancient world, and were Epicureans and materialists without knowing it, just as the Pharisees were, even to the eye of a writer like Josephus (Life iii.), the counterpart of the Stoics.Plumptre.
Act. 23:11. Pauls Midnight Visitor.And the night following the Lord stood by him. What did this signify?
I. Christs fidelity towards His servant.When Christ called the persecutor Saul to be an apostle, He did not send him forth alone and unprotected, but put him under the same promise as had been given to the eleven: Lo! I am with you alway! The present appearance of Christ to Paul in the castle prison showed that Christ intended to keep His word.
II. Christs sympathy with His servant.Even had Christ not expressed His sympathy in words, His presence could not have failed to indicate it. Perhaps also Paul remembered the words which Christ formerly spoke to him upon the way to DamascusSaul! Saul! why persecutest thou Me? If he did, he must have felt solaced by the reflection that as Christ had sympathised with His persecuted followers when they were cast into prison by him, Saul, so now did his Lord sympathise with him, Paul, in his bodily sufferings and mental anxieties.
III. Christs approbation of His servant.Remarkable that no word of fault-finding or rebuke falls from the lips of Christ. Rather, the absence of any such word signified approbation. What a comfort to Paul! who always affirmed it was a small matter for him to be judged of his fellow-men so long as he secured a favourable judgment from his Master (1Co. 4:3). So should Christians labour to be accepted of Him (2Co. 5:9).
IV. Christs protection of His servant.Thou must bear witness also at Rome! Then Paul could not be left for ever in the hands of his enemies. Already Paul had conceived the idea of visiting Rome (Act. 19:21). Now he learns that his Master had included that in His plan also. Henceforward Paul knew that he would lead a charmed life until his work was done. So may the Christian reason.
V. Christs use for His servant.Paul was not to be cast off, but promoted to higher service. Thou must bear witness for Me at Rome also. All Pauls past experiences had only been training him for his last place of ministryRome. So Christ leads His people and educates them for higher and nobler service. Often true on earth; certainly true of all earths discipline, which is a preparation for nobler service in heaven.
Illustrations.Saints in Prison.
1. Paul. Not the first time this that the apostle had been imprisoned. In prisons more abundant (2Co. 11:23) formed one important item in his life-record. A memorable instance occured in Philippi (Act. 16:23). Nor was this the first experience Paul had of being visited during night by Christ in a season of dejection. On an earlier occasion in Corinth (Act. 18:9) Christ had appeared to him with words of cheer.
2. Master Philpot. This eminent martyr under Mary wrote to his friends that his loathsome and horrible prison was to him as pleasant as the walk in the garden of the Kings Bench, because, though in the judgment of the world he was in hell, he nevertheless felt in the same the consolation of heaven.
3. Samuel Rutherford. Dating his letters from Christs palace in Aberdeen, within which he was detained as in a prison, this holy man thus wrote to a friend: The Lord is with me; I care not what man can do. I burden no man. I want nothing. No king is better provided than I am: sweet, sweet and easy is the cross of my Lord. My well beloved is kinder and more warm than ordinary, and cometh and visiteth my soul. My chains are over-gilded with gold.
4. Madame Guyon. This illustrious lady, imprisoned in the castle of Vincennes in 1695, not only sang but wrote songs of praise to her God. It sometimes seemed to me, she wrote, as if I were a little bird whom the Lord had placed in a cage; and that I had nothing now to do but sing. The joy of my heart gave a brightness to the objects around me. The stones of my prison looked, in my eyes, like rubies. I esteemed them more than all the gaudy brilliancies of a vain world.
The Midnight Vision in the Castle; or the Master speaking words of cheer to His servant. These words assured him of three things:
I. Of a safe issue out of his present troubles.So they upheld and comforted him in the uncertainty of his life from the Jews.
II. Of an accomplishment of his intention of visiting Rome.So they upheld and comforted him in his uncertainty as to liberation from prison at Csarea.
III. Of the certainty that, however he might be sent thither, he should preach the gospel and bear testimony at Rome.So he was upheld and comforted in the uncertainty of his surviving the storm in the Mediterranean, and in that of his fate on arriving at Rome. So may one crumb of Divine grace and help be multiplied to feed five thousand wants and anxieties.Alford.
Comfort for Christs Suffering Servants.
I. Christs presence with them.As Christ appeared to Paul in the castle, so is He ever beside His faithful servants in the hour of their tribulation. If God be for us, who can be against us? If He undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance (Henry).
II. Christs words to them.Be of good cheer. Christ desires His people to be happy under all circumstances. Because
(1) He is ever with them. God is near thee; therefore cheer thee, sad soul!
(2) All things work together for good to them that love Him. Who, then, is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
III. Christs plans for them.
1. That they should serve as His witnesses, wherever they might be.
2. That their lives should not terminate till their work was finished.
3. That their own purposes for Him, if for His glory, should be fulfilled.
Act. 23:1-11. The Best Advocates of a Servant of God before the Judgment-Seat of an Unrighteous World.
I. The comfort of a good conscience in his breast.
II. The curse of an evil thing in the ranks of the enemy.
III. The sympathy of the honest and unprejudiced in the world.
IV. The gracious testimony of a righteous judge in heaven.Gerok.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
e.
Paul addresses the council. Act. 23:1-10.
Act. 23:1
And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.
Act. 23:2
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Act. 23:3
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
Act. 23:4
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest?
Act. 23:5
And Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.
Act. 23:6
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Act. 23:7
And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
Act. 23:8
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
Act. 23:9
And there arose a great clamor: and some of the scribes of the Pharisees part stood up, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?
Act. 23:10
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the castle.
Fredrick Farrar remarks as to the place of the assembly of the council (Page 504).
Act. 23:1 The Sanhedrin met in full numbers. They no longer sat in the Lishcath Haggazzith, the famous hall, with its tessellated pavement which stood at the south side of the Court of the Priests. Had they still been accustomed to meet there, Lysias and his soldiers would never have been suffered to obtrude their profane feet into a chamber which lay within the middle wall of partitionbeyond which even a procurator dare not even have set a step on pain of death. But at this period the Sanhedrin had probably begun their meetings in the Chanujoth, or booths, the very existence of which was a proof of the power and prosperity of the Serpent House of Hanan. To this place Lysias led his prisoner and placed him before them.
Paul was determined to secure a fair hearing of his cause and case before the proper authorities. It must have been with this thought in heart that he looked stedfastly on the council.
He did not refer to them as Peter and John had (Act. 4:8) Rulers of the people and elders.
Paul here simply called them Brethren possibly because he himself had been a member of this body of men. First he wanted it known that he was not guilty.
Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.
865.
What does Farrar say about the place of the meeting of the Sanhedrin? How proven?
866.
Why call the council brethren?
Act. 23:2-3 Maybe it was the familiarity with which Paul addressed the council or the bold statement of innocence or perchance the guilty conscience of the high priest that irritated him. In a moment of hot rage he cried out to those near Paul, Smite him on the mouth. Instantly the heavy hand of some soldier struck Paul full in the face. Smarting from the blow, the apostle flashed out with the words: God shall smite thee, thou whited wall! What! Sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
867.
Why have Paul struck on the mouth?
868.
Why call the high priest a whited wall if he did not know him?
Act. 23:4-5 Those observing this incident (members of the Sanhedrin) had so schooled themselves in self-deception that the truth or falsity of Pauls statement made no appeal to them. The only thing apparent to them was that the high priest had been reviled. They were shocked! Revilest thou Gods High Priest?
Why had Paul so spoken? Did he not know who occupied the chair of this office? It is perfectly possible that he didnt for the Sadducees passed the chair with disgraceful frequency. Since Paul had been away from Jerusalem he had not informed himself on just who was or who wasnt the high priest.
Then also Frederick Farrar suggests that the apostles poor eyesight played a part in the reason for his words. He says:
Owing to his weakened sight, all that he saw before him was a blurred white figure issuing a brutal order, and to this person, who in his external whiteness and inward worthlessness thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulchre, he had addressed him in indignant denunciation. (ibid. 541).
Immediately upon learning the identity of the delinquent, Paul retracted his previous statement for he well knew it was a direct violation of the scriptures. (Exo. 22:28).
869.
How is the self-deception of the Sanhedrin seen?
870.
How is it that Paul did not know who was high priest?
871.
How does Pauls poor eyesight fit into this picture?
872.
What scripture was violated by Pauls words?
Act. 23:6-9 Paul, like Peter, John, the twelve, and Stephen, knew that there was to be no justice or mercy administered by this court.
The council hadnt changed since Paul was associated with it. It was divided into two partiesthe Sadducean priest and the Pharisaic elders and scribes.
As the apostle surveyed the council, he decided that an act of strategy was the best way out.
Brethren, Im a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees and for the hope of the resurrection I am called into question.
This bold statement lined him up with one side of the Sanhedrin and at once touched the sore spot between the two parties. The statement of the apostle was indirectly true for the preaching of the resurrection of Christ was several times opposed. The scribes of the Pharisees could not let this opportunity pass. Here was a chance to contend for the truth. Up one of them jumped. We find no evil in this man. And what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?
This touched off the powder keg of emotion and ill feeling. It was only a matter of minutes until everyone was arguing and haranguing his neighbor. In the midst of this wild disorder stood the apostle.
Some of them had hold of him, those of the Pharisees in defense and those of the Sadducees in hatred. He was pulled and hauled between them until he was threatened by the force of the pulling to be torn limb from limb.
873.
Why use the act of strategy he did?
874.
Was the statement of the apostle true?
Act. 23:10 Now Claudius Lysias must have been confused and disgusted. What kind of people were these Jews? He could make no sense out of their words or actions.
He gave the command to those soldiers near him to interfere in this insane melee and rescue their prisoner. This they did and probably none too gently.
If ever it was that the apostle needed encouragement, it was now. He had come to Jerusalem with a free will love offering for his Jewish brethren. He came with a sincere prayer that they would receive him. He was glad to try for reconciliation in the temple purification. He was falsely accused, and tried to get a hearing on the steps of the castle while he stood in Roman chains. He only escaped a cruel beating by an appeal to his Roman citizenship. He found nothing but hatred and insolence from the highest court of his people. Here he was bound in a Roman prison.
875.
How was Pauls life endangered?
876.
What were the probable feelings of Claudius Lysias at the result of the trial?
877.
Give three facts that point to an evident need for encouragement on the part of Paul.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXIII.
(1) And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.We note once more the characteristic word for the eager anxious gaze with which St. Paul scanned the assembly. He had not seen it since he had stood there among Stephens accusers, a quarter of a century ago. Many changes, of course, had come about in that interval, but some of the faces were probably the same; and at all events the general aspect of the Gazith, or Hall of Meeting, on the south side of the Temple, with its circular benches must have remained the same.
I have lived in all good conscience . . .The verb for I have lived means literally, I have used my citizenship. It had ceased, however, to have this sharply defined meaning (see Note on the kindred substantive in Php. 3:20), and had come to be used of the whole course of a mans social conduct. Perhaps My mode of life has been in all good conscience, would be the nearest English equivalent. The reference to conscience may be noted as eminently characteristic of St. Paul. So we find him saying of himself that he had all his life served God with a pure conscience (2Ti. 1:3); that a good conscience is the end of the commandment (1Ti. 1:5); or, again, recognising the power of conscience even among the heathen (Rom. 2:15). In the phrase I know nothing by myself, i.e., I am conscious of no fault (see Note on 1Co. 4:4), we have a like reference to its authority. Comp. also Act. 24:16; Rom. 13:5; 1Co. 10:25. And in all these passages he assigns to conscience its true functions with an exact precision. It is not an infallible guide and requires illumination, and therefore each man needs to pray for light, but it is never right to act against its dictates, and that which is objectively the better course is subjectively the worse, unless the man in his heart believes it to be the better.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 23
THE STRATEGY OF PAUL ( Act 23:1-10 ) 23:1-10 Paul fixed his gaze on the Sanhedrin and said, “Brethren, I have lived before God with a completely pure conscience up to this day.” The high priest Ananias ordered those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you white-washed wall! Do you sit judging me according to the Law and do you order me to be struck and so break the Law?” Those who were standing beside him said, “Are you insulting God’s high priest?” Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest. If I had known I would not have spoken so, for it stands written, ‘You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'” Now Paul knew that one section of them were Sadducees and the other section were Pharisees, so he shouted out in the Sanhedrin, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees, and I am on trial for the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this a disturbance arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the meeting was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection nor angel nor spirit, while the Pharisees acknowledge both. There was a great uproar; and some of the scribes who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and argued and said, “We find no fault in this man. What if a spirit or angel has spoken to him?” When a great disturbance was going on the commander was so afraid that Paul might be torn apart by them so he ordered the guard to go down and to snatch him out of their midst and to bring him into the barracks.
There was a certain audacious recklessness about Paul’s conduct before the Sanhedrin; he acted like a man who knew that he was burning his boats. Even his very beginning was a challenge. To say Brethren was to put himself on an equal footing with the court; for the normal beginning when addressing the Sanhedrin was, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” When the high priest ordered Paul to be struck, he himself was transgressing the Law, which said, “He who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God.” So Paul rounds upon him, calling him a white-washed wall. To touch a dead body was for an Israelite to incur ceremonial defilement; it was therefore the custom to white-wash tombs so that none might be touched by mistake. So Paul is in effect calling the high priest a white-washed tomb.
It was indeed a crime to speak evil of a ruler of the people ( Exo 22:28). Paul knew perfectly well that Ananias was high priest. But Ananias was notorious as a glutton, a thief, a rapacious robber and a quisling in the Roman service. Paul’s answer really means, “This man sitting there–I never knew a man like that could be high priest of Israel.” Then Paul made a claim that he knew would set the Sanhedrin by the ears. In the Sanhedrin there were Pharisees and Sadducees whose beliefs were often opposed. The Pharisees believed in the minutiae of the oral Law; the Sadducees accepted only the written Law. The Pharisees believed in predestination; the Sadducees believed in free-will. The Pharisees believed in angels and spirits; the Sadducees did not. Above all, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees did not.
So Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and that it was for the hope of resurrection from the dead he was on trial. As a result the Sanhedrin was split in two; and in the violent argument that followed Paul was nearly torn in pieces. To save him from violence the commander had to take him back to the barracks again.
A PLOT UNMASKED ( Act 23:11-24 ) 23:11-24 On the next night the Lord stood by Paul and said, “Courage! As you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear witness in Rome also.” When it was day the Jews formed a plot and laid themselves selves under a vow neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. There were more than forty who formed this conspiracy. They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, “We have laid ourselves under a vow to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. Now, therefore, do you lay information with the commander, so that he may bring him down to us, as if you were going to investigate his case more thoroughly; and we are ready to kill him before he gets your length.” But Paul’s sister’s son was there and heard the plot. So he went into the barracks and reported it to Paul. Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander for he has something to report to him.” He took him and brought him to the commander and said, “The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to take this young man to you because he has something to say to you.” The commander took him by the hand and took him aside privately and asked him, “What is it that you have to report to me?” He said, “The Jews have got together to ask you to bring Paul down to the Sanhedrin tomorrow, as if they were going to make a more thorough investigation into his case. Do not you therefore agree to them for more than forty, who have taken a vow upon themselves neither to eat or drink till they have killed him, are lying in wait for him; and they are now ready, expecting your assent.” The commander dismissed the young man with instructions to tell no one that–as he said–“you have brought this information to me.” He called two of his centurions and said to them, “Get ready two hundred soldiers, seventy cavalry and two hundred spearsmen to go to Caesarea at about nine o’clock in the morning. Provide baggage animals that they may mount Paul and get him through to Felix, the governor, in safety.”
Here we see two things. First, we see the lengths to which the Jews would go to eliminate Paul. Under certain circumstances the Jews regarded murder as justifiable. If a man was a public danger to morals and to life they regarded it as legitimate to eliminate him. So forty men put themselves under a vow. The vow was called a cherem. When a man took such a vow he said, “May God curse me if I fail to do this.” These men vowed neither to eat nor drink, and put themselves under the ban of God, until they had assassinated Paul. Fortunately their plan was laid bare by Paul’s nephew. Second, we see the lengths to which the Roman government would go in order to administer impartial justice. Paul was a prisoner; but he was a Roman citizen and therefore the commander mobilized a small army to see him taken in safety to Caesarea to be tried before Felix. It is strange how the fanatical hatred of the Jews–God’s chosen people–contrasts with the impartial justice of the commander–a heathen in Jewish eyes.
THE CAPTAIN’S LETTER ( Act 23:25-35 )
23:25-35 The commander wrote a letter to the following effect, “Claudius Lysias to his excellency Felix, the governor–greetings! When this man was seized by the Jews and when he was going to be murdered by them, I stepped in with the guard and rescued him, for I learned that he was a Roman citizen. As I wished to discover the charges on which they accused him, I brought him down to their Sanhedrin. I found that he was accused of some questions of their Law and was under no charge deserving of death or bonds. When it was disclosed to me that there would be a plot against the man. I immediately sent him to you and I ordered his accusers to make their statement against him before you.”
The soldiers, according to their instructions, took Paul up and brought him by night to Antipatris. On the next day they returned to barracks, leaving the cavalry to proceed with him. They came into Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor and set Paul before him. When he had read the letter and had asked from what province he came. and when he had found out that he was from Cilicia, he said, “I will hear your case when your accusers are here also”; and he ordered him to be kept in Herod’s Praetorium.
The seat of Roman government was not in Jerusalem but in Caesarea. The praetorium ( G4232) is the residence of a governor; and the praetorium in Caesarea was a palace which had been built by Herod the Great. Claudius ( G2804) Lysias ( G3079) wrote his letter, absolutely fair and completely impartial, and the cavalcade set out. It was 60 miles from Jerusalem to Caesarea and Antipatris was 25 miles from Caesarea. Up to Antipatris the country was dangerous and inhabited by Jews; after that the country was open and flat, quite unsuited for any ambush and largely inhabited by Gentiles. So at Antipatris the main body of the troops went back and left the cavalry alone as a sufficient escort.
The governor to whom Paul was taken was Felix and his name was a byword. For five years he had governed Judaea and for two years before that he had been stationed in Samaria; he had still two years to go before being dismissed from his post. He had begun life as a slave. His brother, Pallas, was the favourite of Nero. Through the influence of Pallas, Felix had risen first to be a freedman and then to be a governor. He was the first slave in history ever to become the governor of a Roman province. Tacitus, the Roman historian, said of him, “He exercised the prerogatives of a king with the spirit of a slave.” He had actually been married to three princesses one after another. The name of the first is not known; the second was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa the First. He was completely unscrupulous and was capable of hiring thugs to murder his own closest supporters. It was to face a man like that that Paul went to Caesarea.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
5. Paul before the Sanhedrin Second Defence , Act 23:1-9 .
1. Earnestly beholding Scanning the assembly with an intent gaze, to analyze its elements and discover by what method he may again master the crisis, Paul probably recognises some old acquaintances. He notes, probably, those who are his bitterest enemies. The presiding chiliarch, now anxious about his mistake in binding him, is essentially his friend, and has near by a sufficient protective military force. Paul, therefore, feels himself on high ground, and determines to take a bold initiative.
Men brethren He omits fathers, as used in Act 22:1, and calls them in effect brethren, or equals, and not superiors.
Lived Greek, “I have conducted as a citizen,” or exercised my citizenship.
PART THIRD.
CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.
Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.
I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.
‘And Paul, looking steadfastly on the council, said, “Men, brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.”
Paul began his defence fearlessly and immediately by declaring that he lived before God, and that he sought to do it with a good conscience. Compare here Act 24:16; 1Ti 1:5 ; 1Ti 1:19; 1Pe 3:16; 1Pe 3:21. He wanted the court to know immediately that he was a man who treated his conscience seriously and lived in accordance with it. And that as a Pharisee he had no grounds for thinking that he had failed in his obligations (see Php 3:7-9). However, somehow this caused offence. Possibly his method of address was not considered deferential enough, or possibly it was because he was considered to have commenced his defence too precipitately. The council may have felt that he was too forward and should wait to be asked. Either of these would partly explain (but not excuse) the next action.
PAUL’S JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM AND THEN TO ROME (19:21-28:31).
Here we begin a new section of Acts. It commences with Paul’s purposing to go to Jerusalem, followed by an incident, which, while it brings to the conclusion his ministry in Ephesus, very much introduces the new section. From this point on all changes. Paul’s ‘journey to Jerusalem’ and then to Rome has begun, with Paul driven along by the Holy Spirit.
The ending of the previous section as suggested by the closing summary in Act 19:20 (see introduction), together with a clear reference in Act 19:21 to the new direction in which Paul’s thinking is taking him, both emphasise that this is a new section leading up to his arrival in Rome. Just as Jesus had previously ‘changed direction’ in Luke when He set His face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51), so it was to be with Paul now as he too sets his face towards Jerusalem. It is possibly not without significance that Jesus’ ‘journey’ also began after a major confrontation with evil spirits, which included an example of one who used the name of Jesus while not being a recognised disciple (compare Act 19:12-19 with Luk 9:37-50).
From this point on Paul’s purposing in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem on his way to Rome takes possession of the narrative (Act 19:21; Act 20:16; Act 20:22-23; Act 21:10-13; Act 21:17), and it will be followed by the Journey to Rome itself. And this whole journey is deliberately seen by Luke as commencing from Ephesus, a major centre of idolatry and the of Imperial cult, where there is uproar and Paul is restricted from preaching, and as, in contrast, deliberately ending with the triumph of a pure, unadulterated Apostolic ministry in Rome where all is quiet and he can preach without restriction. We can contrast with this how initially in Section 1 the commission commenced in a pure and unadulterated fashion in Jerusalem (Act 1:3-9) and ended in idolatry in Caesarea (Act 12:20-23). This is now the reverse the same thing in reverse.
Looked at from this point of view we could briefly summarise Acts in three major sections as follows:
The Great Commission is given in Jerusalem in the purity and triumph of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as King. The word powerfully goes out to Jerusalem and to its surrounding area, and then in an initial outreach to the Gentiles. Jerusalem reject their Messiah and opt for an earthly ruler whose acceptance of divine honours results in judgment (Act 19:1-12).
The word goes out triumphantly to the Dispersion and the Gentiles and it is confirmed that they will not be required to be circumcised or conform to the detailed Jewish traditions contained in what is described as ‘the Law of Moses’ (Act 13:1 to Act 19:20).
Paul’s journey to Rome commences amidst rampant idolatry and glorying in the royal rule of Artemis and Rome, and comes to completion with Paul, the Apostle, triumphantly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the Kingly Rule of God from his own house in Rome (Act 19:21 to Act 28:31).
It will be seen by this that with this final section the great commission has in Luke’s eyes been virtually carried out. Apostolic witness has been established in the centre of the Roman world itself and will now reach out to every part of that world, and the command ‘You shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth’ is on the point of fulfilment.
This final section, in which Paul will make his testimony to the resurrection before kings and rulers, may be analysed as follows.
a Satan counterattacks against Paul’s too successful Ministry in Ephesus and throughout Asia Minor and causes uproar resulting in his ministry being unsuccessfully attacked by the worshippers of ‘Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians’. This city, with its three ‘temple-keepers’ for the Temple of Artemis and the two Imperial Cult Temples, is symbolic of the political and religious alliance between idolatry and Rome which has nothing to offer but greed and verbosity. It expresses the essence of the kingly rule of Rome. And here God’s triumph in Asia over those Temples has been pictured in terms of wholesale desertion of the Temple of Artemis (mention of the emperor cult would have been foolish) by those who have become Christians and will in the parallel below be contrasted and compared with Paul freely proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God in Rome (Act 19:21-41).
b Paul’s progress towards Jerusalem is diverted because of further threats and he meets with disciples for seven days at Troas (Act 20:1-6).
c The final voyage commences and a great sign is given of God’s presence with Paul. Eutychus is raised from the dead (Act 20:7-12).
d Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus who meet him at Miletus and he gives warning of the dangers of spiritual catastrophe ahead and turns them to the word of His grace. If they obey Him all will be saved (Act 20:13-38).
e A series of maritime stages, and of prophecy (Act 19:4; Act 19:11), which reveals that God is with Paul (Act 21:1-16).
f Paul proves his true dedication in Jerusalem and his conformity with the Law and does nothing that is worthy of death but the doors of the Temple are closed against him (Act 21:17-30).
g Paul is arrested and gives his testimony of his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 21:31 to Act 22:29).
h Paul appears before the Sanhedrin and points to the hope of the resurrection (Act 22:30 to Act 23:9).
i He is rescued by the chief captain and is informed by the Lord that as he has testified in Jerusalem so he will testify in Rome (Act 23:11).
j The Jews plan an ambush, which is thwarted by Paul’s nephew (Act 23:12-25).
k Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea (Act 23:26-35).
l Paul makes his defence before Felix stressing the hope of the resurrection (Act 24:1-22).
k Paul is kept at Felix’ pleasure for two years (with opportunities in Caesarea) (Act 24:23-27).
j The Jews plan to ambush Paul again, an attempt which is thwarted by Festus (Act 25:1-5).
i Paul appears before Festus and appeals to Caesar. To Rome he will go (Act 25:6-12).
h Paul is brought before Agrippa and gives his testimony stressing his hope in the resurrection (Act 25:23 to Act 26:8).
g Paul gives his testimony concerning his commissioning by the risen Jesus (Act 26:9-23).
f Paul is declared to have done nothing worthy of death and thus to have conformed to the Law, but King Herod Agrippa II closes his heart against his message (Act 26:28-32).
e A series of maritime stages and of prophecy (Act 19:10; Act 19:21-26) which confirms that God is with Paul (27.l-26).
d Paul speaks to those at sea, warning of the dangers of physical catastrophe ahead unless they obey God’s words. If they obey Him all will be delivered (Act 27:27-44).
c Paul is delivered from death through snakebite and Publius’ father and others are healed, which are the signs of God’s presence with him, and the voyage comes to an end after these great signs have been given (Act 28:1-13).
b Paul meets with disciples for seven days at Puteoli and then at the Appii Forum (Act 28:14-15).
a Paul commences his ministry in Rome where, living in quietness, he has clear course to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God (Act 28:16-31).
Thus in ‘a’ the section commences at the very centre of idolatry which symbolises with its three temples (depicted in terms of the Temple of Artemis) the political and religious power of Rome, the kingly rule of Rome, which is being undermined by the Good News which has ‘almost spread throughout all Asia’ involving ‘much people’. It begins with uproar and an attempt to prevent the spread of the Good News and reveals the ultimate emptiness of that religion. All they can do is shout slogans including the name of Artemis, but though they shout it long and loud that name has no power and results in a rebuke from their ruler. In the parallel the section ends with quiet effectiveness and the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God being given free rein. This is in reverse to section 1 which commenced with the call to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule of God (Act 1:3) and ended with the collapse of the kingly rule of Israel through pride and idolatry (Act 12:20-23).
In ‘b’ Paul meets with God’s people for ‘seven days, the divinely perfect period, at the commencement of his journey, and then in the parallel he again meets with the people of God for ‘seven days’ at the end of his journey. Wherever he goes, there are the people of God.
In ‘c’ God reveals that His presence is with Paul by the raising of the dead, and in the parallel His presence by protection from the Snake and the healing of Publius.
In ‘d’ we have a significant parallel between Paul’s warning of the need for the church at Ephesus to avoid spiritual catastrophe through ‘the word of His grace’ and in the parallel ‘d’ the experience of being saved from a great storm through His gracious word, but only if they are obedient to it, which results in deliverance for all.
In ‘e’ and its parallel we have Paul’s voyages, each accompanied by prophecy indicating God’s continuing concern for Paul.
In ‘f’ Paul proves his dedication and that he is free from all charges that he is not faithful to the Law of Moses, and in the parallel Agrippa II confirms him to be free of all guilt.
In ‘g’ Paul give his testimony concerning receiving his commission from the risen Jesus, and in the parallel this testimony is repeated and the commission expanded.
In ‘h’ Paul proclaims the hope of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin, and in the parallel he proclaims the hope of the resurrection before Felix, Agrippa and the gathered Gentiles.
In ‘i’ the Lord tells him that he will testify at Rome, while in the parallel the procurator Festus declares that he will testify at Rome. God’s will is carried out by the Roman power.
In ‘ j’ a determined plan by the Jews to ambush Paul and kill him is thwarted, and in the parallel a further ambush two years later is thwarted. God is continually watching over Paul.
In ‘k’ Paul is sent to Felix, to Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, and in the parallel spends two years there with access given to the ‘his friends’ so that he can freely minister.
In ‘l’ we have the central point around which all revolves. Paul declares to Felix and the elders of Jerusalem the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust in accordance with the Scriptures.
It will be noted that the central part of this chiasmus is built around the hope of the resurrection which is mentioned three times, first in ‘h’, then centrally in ‘l’ and then again in ‘h’, and these are sandwiched between two descriptions of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Jesus (in ‘g’ and in the parallel ‘g’). The defeat of idolatry and the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God have as their central cause the hope of the resurrection and the revelation of the risen Jesus.
We must now look at the section in more detail.
Paul Appears Before the Sanhedrin (22:30-23:9). The Lord Assures Him That As He Has Testified in Jerusalem So Will He Testify in Rome (23:10-11).
The chief officer did not know quite what to do with Paul. He was not even quite sure of what the accusation against him was. At first it had been quite clear. He was an Egyptian insurgent, he was a blasphemer, he had taken Greeks into the inner temple, he was all that was bad (or so he had been told). Now having listened to Paul he was not so sure. He had also probably been visited by Jewish leaders who had wanted him to hand him over to them. This was presumably why he as a mere chief captain was able to ‘command’ the appearance of the Sanhedrin. If they wanted him they must justify their request, for Paul was a Roman citizen.
Having described the appearance of the risen Jesus in chapter 22 Paul will now continually proclaim the hope of the resurrection. The word of God is not bound. This proclamation is found in Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Act 26:6-8 (in the introductory analysis in ‘h’, ‘l’, and ‘h’). It will then be followed by a further description of the risen Jesus to Paul (Act 26:12-18). So his period of detention from his arrest in Jerusalem to his commencement of his journey to Rome is one long proclamation of the resurrection from the dead which is everywhere emphasised.
The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28
2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35
3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22
4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38
5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32
6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.
2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”
Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.
Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.
Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”
Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”
Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”
Witness of Paul’s Arrest, Imprisonment, and Trials (A.D. 58-62) The final major division of the book of Acts (Act 21:1 to Act 28:31) serves as Luke’s testimony of the arrest and trials of Paul the apostle, his trip by sea to Rome, and preparation for a hearing before the Roman emperor, the highest court in the Roman Empire. G. H. C. MacGregor notes that this large portion of material devoted to Paul’s arrest, imprisonment and journey to Rome fills about one fourth of the book of Acts. He suggests several reasons. (1) Luke was an Eyewitness of these Events Luke was an eye witness of these dramatic events of Paul’s arrest, trials and journey to Rome. The nature of such events must have created a strong impact upon his life. (2) The Gospels are Structured with a Similar Disproportion of Jesus’ Arrest, Passion and Resurrection – By comparing this large portion of material to a similar structure in the Gospels, MacGregor suggests that Luke draws a parallel plot with the story of Paul. (3) Luke is Writing an Apology for Paul Many scholars believe Luke is writing an apology in defense of Paul. MacGregor bases this view upon the five speeches of Paul’s defense that are recorded in this section of Acts: Paul’s speech to the Jewish mob (Act 22:3-21), to the Sanhedrin (Act 23:1-6), to Felix, the Roman governor (Act 24:10-21), to Festus, the Roman governor (Act 25:8-11), and to King Herod (Act 26:2-23). A number of scholars support the proposition that the impetus behind these events was an effort to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire, which leads to the suggestion that Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke as a legal brief in anticipation of Paul’s trial before the Roman court. MacGregor argues that this motif is woven throughout Paul’s missionary journeys when Luke carefully records his encounters with Roman authorities in various cities. He notes that Luke records statements by Lysias, Festus, and Felix regarding the failure by the Jews to prove Paul’s guilt under Roman Law. He adds that Luke ends the book by portraying Paul as a peaceful man entertaining guests while imprisoned in Rome, in stark contrast to the zealous violence of the Jews that Rome was accustomed to encountering. [258] We may add that Luke’s opening to his Gospel and Acts serve as a petition to Theophilus.
[258] G. H. C. MacGregor and Theodore P. Ferris, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1954), 284-285.
The accounts of Paul’s five trials and apologetic speeches recorded in Act 21:1 to Act 26:32 show that Paul had exhausted the judicial systems in Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, before departing for Rome. In each of these trials, Luke proves Paul’s innocence. The only court left was an appeal to the highest court in Rome. These five trials serve as a testimony that Paul had a legal right to appeal unto Caesar, and that he was beyond doubt innocent of his allegations by the Jews.
One more important aspect of this passage is that divine oracles are embedded within the narrative material of Act 21:1 to Act 28:31. For example, Paul received divine oracles from the seven daughters of Philip the evangelist and the prophet Agabus (Act 21:8); he testifies of his divine vision on the road to Damascus and of the prophecy of Ananias (Act 22:6-16); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation while in prison at Caesarea (Act 23:11); Paul testifies again of his divine vision on the road to Damascus (Act 26:12-19); Luke records Paul’s angelic visitation at sea (Act 27:20-26).
Outline – Here is a proposed outline to Act 21:1 to Act 28:31:
1. Prophecies of Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem Act 21:1-14
2. Paul’s Arrest and First Speech to Jewish Mob Act 21:15 to Act 22:29
3. Paul’s Second Speech Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:35
4. Paul’s Third Speech Before Felix the Governor Act 24:1-27
5. Paul’s Fourth Speech Before Festus the Governor Act 25:1-12
6. Paul’s Fifth Speech Before King Agrippa Act 25:13 to Act 26:32
7. The Witness of Paul’s Trip to Rome Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
Paul Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:11 records Paul’s testimony before the Sanhedrin.
Act 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.
Act 23:1 Act 23:1 Act 24:16, “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.”
2Ti 1:3, “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;”
Act 23:1 “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren” – Comments – Each of Paul’s opening speeches reveals a man unashamed and confident of his innocence. In Act 21:40 he turns to address the Jewish mob rather than accept deliverance from the Roman soldiers, as would be typical for someone who had committed a crime and wanted to escape punishment. In Act 23:1 he looks intently upon the Sanhedrin and speaks boldly rather than hanging his head down in shame and guilt. In Act 24:10 he addresses Felix the governor with cheer. In Act 25:11 Paul boldly declares to Festus that if any wrong can be found in him, he is ready to die. In Act 26:1-2 he stretches forth his hand as an orator and speaks unto King Agrippa.
Act 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Act 23:3 Act 23:3 Mat 23:27, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”
Act 23:4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
Act 23:5 Act 23:5 Exo 22:28, “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people .”
Other New Testament passages make an indirect reference to this verse out of Exodus.
2Pe 2:10-11, “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.”
Jud 1:8, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”
Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Act 23:6 Act 23:6 “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question” Comments – Paul will focus upon the theme of the resurrection before the Sanhedrin and in his defense before King Agrippa (Act 26:3; Act 26:23).
Act 26:8, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”
Act 26:23, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
Act 23:9 Comments The Pharisees took seriously the testimony of a fellow Jew who had received a vision or divine oracle. When reflecting back on Paul’s first defense in Act 22:1-21, we see that he relied heavily upon the visionary aspects of his conversion, which was more likely to appeal to the Pharisees
Act 23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.
Act 23:11 Act 23:11 The Second Witness of Paul’s Innocence, Standing Before the Sanhedrin (A.D. 58) Act 22:30 to Act 23:35 gives us the testimony of Paul’s second trial as he stands before the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is the second speech that Luke records of Paul’s defense of the Christian faith. Paul has spoken before the Jewish mob at the Temple (Act 21:15 to Act 22:29); he now stands before the Sanhedrin and addressed the Jewish leaders (Act 22:30 to Act 23:35); he will stand before Felix the governor (Act 24:1-27); he will stand before Festus the subsequent governor (Act 25:1-12); and he will stand before King Agrippa (Act 25:13 to Act 26:32). These preliminary trials lead up to Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Many scholars suggest Luke compiles this sequence of trials in order to reveal Paul’s innocence as a legal defense that could have been used during Paul’s actual trial.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Paul Before the Sanhedrin Act 22:30 to Act 23:11
2. The Jews Plot Against Paul’s Life Act 23:12-22
3. Paul is Sent to Felix the Governor Act 23:23-35
The Hearing in the Presence of the Sanhedrin.
Paul rebukes the high priest:
v. 1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the Council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
v. 2. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
v. 3. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the Law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law?
v. 4. And they that stood by said, Revelation lest thou God’s high priest?
v. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
The hearing had been opened by the Roman tribune, Lysias. The members of the Sanhedrin were sitting or standing around in a semicircle, with Paul facing them, and the commander with the guard nearby. The Jewish rulers had been summoned by the Roman chiliarch to give testimony, to bring their charges against Paul. This fact makes the entire situation clear. “When we consider the circumstances, it is clear that this was not a formal meeting of the Council of the nation; it was an assemblage of leading men hastily summoned as advisers by the Roman officer in command at Jerusalem. The officer was in authority; he was the one man that could judge and give a decision; the rest were only his assessors. By no means could a proper meeting of the Council be called in the way followed on this occasion. ” Paul was not present as under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, but as a Roman citizen in charge of the Roman commander of Jerusalem. This is evident also from his entire behavior. For, instead of waiting for the Jews to open the meeting, he looked round upon them with his characteristic steadfast, undaunted gaze, and then calmly invited their charges by stating, with evident composure, that in all good conscience he had comported himself before God until this day. Note that he addresses them as brethren, thus placing himself on a level with them. And he calmly asserts his innocence of any wrongdoing in the sense which the Jews urged, for he uses a word which literally means that he has done his full duty as a citizen of the commonwealth of God, and that he has respected and observed its laws. But Paul’s statement roused the fiercest resentment of the high priest, Ananias by name. This Ananias was not the high priest of the gospels, but had been appointed to the office by Herod of Chalcis. He was sent to Rome as a prisoner by Quadratus, governor of Syria, on account of a quarrel with the Samaritans; but he won his case and returned to Jerusalem. Forgetting that he was not the chairman of this meeting, and that Paul was not under his jurisdiction, he called out to those that stood near the accused to strike him on the mouth, thus signifying that he believed Paul to be uttering base falsehood. Paul’s rebuke was prompt and to the point. He called him a whitewashed wall, as Christ had called the Pharisees whited sepulchers, Mat 23:27. The coat of whitewash was intended to cover the flimsiness and the filth beneath. He had bidden Paul to be struck: God would strike him for his hypocritical behavior; for there he was sitting as one of the judges according to the Law, and against that Law he commanded Paul to be struck, Lev 19:33; Deu 25:1-2. The Lord did punish this high priest in a terrible way, for a few years later he perished in a tumult raised by his own son. The bystanders, shocked by the words of Paul, asked whether he would thus revile the high priest of God, that is, God’s representative, while he was performing the duties of his ministry, Deu 17:12. Paul’s answer may be taken as an excuse, or apology. Ananias was present merely as a member of the Sanhedrin; he neither occupied the president’s chair, nor did he wear the robes characteristic of his office; and Paul did not know him personally. He therefore may have intended to acknowledge that his conduct, so far as the Revelation ling was concerned, was not in agreement with Exo 22:28. Luther believes with Augustine that the reply of Paul was biting irony and mockery. It is perfectly right and justifiable, if Christians criticize and rebuke the sins of the government, but this must always be done with due respect.
EXPOSITION
Act 23:1
Looking steadfastly on for earnestly beholding, A.V.; brethren for men and brethren, A.V.; I have lived before God, etc., for I have lived, etc., before God, A.V. Looking steadfastly; , as in Act 1:10; Act 3:4, Act 3:12; Act 6:15; Act 7:55; Act 10:4; Act 11:6; Act 13:9; Act 14:9. It governs a dative here, as in Act 3:12; Act 10:1; Act 14:9; Luk 4:20; Luk 22:56; elsewhere it is followed by . Brethren. He emits here the “fathers” which he added in Act 22:1. If there is any special significance in the omission, it may be that he meant now to assume a less apologetic tone, and to speak as an equal to equals. Howson and Lewin think that he spoke as being, or having been, himself a member of the Sanhedrim. But he may have meant merely a friendly address to his countrymen. I have lived, etc. ); comp. Php 3:20; I have had my conversation (vitam degi) unto God, or, for God, i.e. according to the will of God, with a view to God as the end of all my actions. So Josephus (‘De Maccabeis,’ sect. 4) says that Antiochus Epiphanes made a law that all Jews should be put to death “who were seen to live according to the Law of their fathers.” And so in 2 Macc. 6:1 it is said that he sent to compel the Jews to forsake the Law of their fathers and not live agreeably to the laws of God. And once more, in 3 Macc. 3:3, 4 the Jews are said to fear God and to be , living according to his Law. Here, then, means to live in obedience to God. St. Paul boldly asserts his undeviating compliance with the Law of God, as a good and consistent Jew (Php 3:6).
Act 23:2
Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, successor of Joseph the son of Camel, or Camydus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 1.3; Act 5:2), appears to have been actually high priest at this time. tie was a violent, haughty, gluttonous, and rapacious man, and vet looked up to by the Jews (“tres considere,” Renan). tie had probably lately returned from Rome, having been confirmed, as it seems, in his office by Claudius, to whom Quadratus, the predecessor of Felix, has sent him as a prisoner, to answer certain charges of sedition against him. He seems to have been high priest for the unusually long period of over ten yearsfrom A.D. 48 to A.D. 59 (see Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 5.2; 6.2, 3; 8.8). But, on the other hand, Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 8.5) speaks of a certain Jonathan being high priest during the government of Felix, and being murdered by the Sicarii at his instigation; which looks as if Ananias’s high priesthood had been interrupted. It would appear, too, from 20. 8.8, that Ismael the son of Fabi succeeded to Jonathan, not to Ananias, as is usually supposed. But the question is involved in great obscurity.
Act 23:3
And for for, A.V.; according to for after, A.V. God shall smite thee ( ). A distinct announcement of something that would happen. (For the incident itself, comp. I Kings Act 22:24, Act 22:25; Jer 28:15, Jer 28:17; and Act 12:1, Act 12:2, Act 12:23) Ananias perished by the daggers of the Sicarii (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud,’ 2. 17.9), at the beginning of the Jewish war under the procuratorship of Florus, in the year A.D. 66. He had been previously deposed from the high priesthood by King Agrippa toward the close of the government of Felix (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 20. 8.8), about A.D. 59, or early in A.D. 60, less than two years from the present time. Thou whited wall. This expression is admirably illustrated by the quotations from Seneca in Kuinoel: “These base and sordid spirits are like the walls of their own houses, only beautiful on the outside.” “What are our gilt roofs hut lies? for we well know that under the gilding unseemly beams are concealed.” “It is not only our walls which are coated with a thin outward ornament; the greatness of those men whom you see strutting in their pride is mere tinsel; look beneath the surface, and you will see all the evil that is hid under that thin crust of dignity”. Ananias was sitting in his priestly robes of office, presiding over the council in power and dignity, and presumably a righteous judge, but his heart within was polluted with injustice, selfishness, and a corrupt disposition, which made him act unrighteously (comp. Mat 23:27). Contrary to the Law; or, acting illegally; , only found here in the New Testament, but common in classical Greek. St. Paul’s temper was very excusably roused by the brutality and injustice of Ananias. But we may, perhaps, think that he did not quite attain to “the mind that was in Christ Jesus,” who “when he was reviled, reviled not again,” but was “led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, he opened not his mouth” (Act 8:32).
Act 23:4
God’s high priest. This seems to show that Ananias actually was high priest, though some think that he had thrust himself into the office after his return from Rome, without due authority, and that this was the reason why St. Paul excused himself by saying, in Act 23:5, “I wist not that he was high priest.”
Act 23:5
And Paul said for then said Paul, A.V.; high for the high, A.V.; a ruler for the ruler, A.V. I wist not, etc. These words express, as distinctly as words can express anything, that St. Paul was not aware, when he called Ananias a “whited wall,” that he was addressing the high priest. Different reasons for this ignorance have been given. Some think that it arose from the uncertainty that existed whether Ananias really was high priest or not at this time, or whether the office was not in abeyance. Others attribute to Paul’s weakness of sight the fact that he did not see that Ananias was sitting in the presidential chair, neither was able to recognize his features. Others, giving to a sense which it never bus, render, “I did not reflect,” or “bear in mind, that he was high priest.” What is certain is that for some reason or other Paul did not know that he was speaking to the high priest. Had he known it, he would not have said what he did say, because the Law is express which says, (Exo 22:28, LXX.).
Act 23:6
Brethren for men and brethren, A.V. (as in Act 23:1); a son of Pharisees for the son of a Pharisee, A.V. and T.R.; touching for of, A.V. When Paul perceived, etc. Possibly the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim were disgusted at the brutal act of Ananias, and were not sorry to hear him called “a whited wall;” and St. Paul’s quick intelligence saw at a glance that the whole council did not sympathize with their president, and divined the cause. With a ready wit, therefore, he proclaimed himself a Pharisee, and, seizing upon the great dogma of the resurrection, which Christians held in common with the Pharisees, he rallied to his side all who were Pharisees in the assembly. Of Pharisees. The R.T. has (in the plural), which gives the sense that his ancestors were Pharisees (comp. Php 3:5). Touching the hope, etc. (see Act 24:21). The words are somewhat difficult to construe. Some take “the hope and resin’. rection of the dead” for a hendiadys, equivalent to “the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” Some take by itself, as meaning “the hope of a future life.” Perhaps the exact form of the words is, “Touching the hope and (its ultimate object) the resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” The article is omitted after the preposition (Alford). As regards St. Paul’s action in taking advantage of the strong party feeling by which the Sanhedrim was divided, there is a difference of opinion. Some, as Alford, think that the presence of mind and skill with which Paul divided the hostile assembly was a direct fulfillment of our Lord’s promise (Mar 13:9-11; see Homiletics, 1-11) to suggest by his Spirit to those under persecution what they ought to say. Farrar, on the contrary, strongly blames St. Paul, and says,” The plan showed great knowledge of character but was it worthy of St. Paul? Could he worthily say, ‘I am a Pharisee’? Had he any right to inflame an existing animosity?” and more to the same effect. But it could not be wrong for St. Paul to take advantage of the agreement of Christian doctrine with some of the tenets of the Pharisees, to check the Pharisees from joining with the Sadducees in crushing that doctrine. He had never thrown off his profession as a Jew, and if a Jew, then one of the straitest sect of the Jews, in any of its main features; and if he claimed the freedom of a Roman citizen to save himself from scourging, why not the fact of being a Pharisee of Pharisees to save himself from an iniquitous sentence of the Sanhedrim?
Act 23:7
Sadducees for the Sadducees, A.V.; assembly for multitude, A.V.
Act 23:8
Neither angel, etc. Is there any connection between this expression and that in Act 12:15, “It is his angel” (see Act 12:9)? For the statement regarding the Pharisees and Sadducees, see Luk 20:27.
Act 23:9
Clamor for cry, A.V.; some of the for the, A.V.; of the Pharisees‘ part for that were of the, etc., A.V.; stood up for arose, A.V.; and what for but, A.V.; a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel for a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, A.V.; the R.T. omits the clause in the T.R., let us not fight against God. The scribes (comp. Luk 20:39). We find no evil in this man (comp. Joh 18:29, Joh 18:33; Luk 23:1-56. 14, 15, 22). What if a spirit, etc.; alluding to what Paul had said in Act 22:17, Act 22:18.
Act 23:10
Be torn for have been pulled, A.V.; by for of, A.V.; take for to take, A.V.; bring for to bring, A.V. A great dissension; , as in Act 15:2. and above, Act 15:7. The state of things here described is exactly what the pages of Josephus and of Tacitus disclose as to the combustible state of the Jewish mind generally just before the commencement of the Jewish war. The Roman power was the one element of quiet and order. The tower of Antonia was the one place of safety in Jerusalem.
Act 23:11
The R.T. omits Paul, in the T.R. and A.V.; concerning for of, A.V.; at for in, A.V. The Lord stood by him. The jaded, harassed, and overwrought spirit needed some unusual support. The Lord whom Paul loved, and for whom he was suffering so much, knew it, and in his tender care for his servant stood by him and spake a word of gracious encouragement to him. Paul felt that he was not forgotten or forsaken. There was more work for him to do, in spite of all the hatred of his countrymen. The capital of heathendom must hear his testimony as well the metropolis of the circumcision.
Act 23:12
The Jews for certain of the Jews, A.V. and T.R. Banded together ( ). This word is found in the New Testament only here and Act 19:40, where it is rendered “concourse.” The sense of “a conspiracy,” which it has here, is common in the LXX. (see Amo 7:10; 2Ki 15:15, etc.). The verb in the LXX. has the sense of “to conspire” (2Sa 15:31; 2Ki 10:9; 2Ki 15:30, ). Bound themselves under a curse ( ). The word (Rom 9:3; 1Co 12:3; 1Co 16:22; Gal 1:8, Gal 1:9) corresponds to the Hebrew , the devotion of anything to destruction; and hence “the thing itself so devoted.” And the verb corresponds to the Hebrew , to devote to destruction, without the possibility of redemption. Here they made themselves an if they did not kill Paul before partaking of any food. It seems, however, that there was a way of escape if they failed to keep the vow. Lightfoot, on this passage, quotes from the Talmud: “He that hath made a vow not to eat anything, woe to him if he eat, and woe to him if he do not eat. If he eat he sinneth against his vow; if he do not eat he sinneth against his life. What must such a man do in this case? Let him go to the wise men, and they will loose his vow” (‘Hebrews and Talmud. Exercit. upon the Acts’).
Act 23:13
Made for had made, A.V. Conspiracy; , in Latin conjuratio. It only occurs here in the New Testament, but is used occasionally by Diodorus Siculus and other Greek writers. The kindred word is found in the LXX. of Gen 14:13, rendered “confederate,” A.V.
Act 23:14
The elders for elders, A.V.; to taste for that we will eat, A.V.; killed for slain, A.V. The chief priests, etc. Meaning, no doubt, those who were of the party of the Sadducees, to which the chief priests mainly belonged at this time. A great curse. There is nothing in the phraseology of this verse, as compared with that of Act 23:12, to warrant the introduction of the word “great.” It is simply, “We have anathematized ourselves with an anathema.”
Act 23:15
Do ye for ye, A.V.; the R.T. omits tomorrow, in the A.V.; judge of his case more exactly for inquire something more perfectly concerning him, A.V.; slay for kill, A.V. With the council. Either the temporary feeling of the Pharisees had subsided, and their old hatred come to the front again, or the high priest and Sadducees, by some plausible excuse, persuaded the Pharisees of the council to join with them in asking that Paul might be brought before them again. Signify. The word only occurs here and at Act 23:22, in this sense of “signifying” or “making known” something, which it has in Est 2:22, LXX.. Codex Alexandrinus (as the rendering of , to tell), and in 2 Macc. 3:7, and in Josephus, as also in classical Greek. Elsewhere in the New Testament it means “to manifest,” or “show,” as in Joh 14:21, Joh 14:22; in the passive voice “to appear,” as in Mat 27:53; Heb 9:24; and in a technical legal sense “to give information” (Act 24:1; Act 25:2, Act 25:15). Judge of his case more exactly; … The word only occurs here and in Act 24:22. The classical use of the word in the sense of “deciding,” “giving judgment,” is in favor of the R.V.; , like , diagnosis (Act 25:21), is a word of very frequent use in medical writers, as is the , which here is joined with it (Act 24:22, note).
Act 23:16
But for and when, A.V.: and he came for he went, A.V. Lying in wait; , only here and in Act 25:3 in the New Testament; but common in the Books of Joshua and Judges in the LXX., and also in classical Greek.
Act 23:17
And for then, A.V.; called unto him one, etc., for called one, etc., unto him, A.V.; something for a certain thing, A.V.
Act 23:18
Saith for said, A.V.; asked for prayed, A.V.; to for unto, A.V.
Act 23:19
And for then, A.V.; going aside asked him privately for went with him aside privately, and asked him, A.V. Took him by the hand ( ); see above, Act 17:19, note. The action denotes a kindly feeling towards St. Paul, as indeed his whole conduct does (comp. Act 24:23; Act 27:3; also Dan 1:9 and Psa 106:46).
Act 23:20
Ask thee to bring for desire thee that then wouldest bring, A.V; unto for into, A.V.; thou wouldest for they would, A.V. and T.R.; more exactly concerning him for of him more perfectly, A.V. Have agreed. occurs four times in the New Testament, of which three are in St. Luke’s writings (Luk 22:5; this passage; and Act 24:9), and the fourth in Joh 9:22. As though thou wouldest. The R.T., which reads for , must surely be wrong. It is in contradiction to Joh 9:15, and makes no sense. The pretext of further inquiry was theirs, not Lysias’s.
Act 23:21
Do not thou therefore for but do not thou, A.V.; under a curse for with an oath, A.V.; neither to eat nor to drink for that they will neither eat nor drink, A.V.; slain for killed, A.V.; the for a (promise), A.V. Do not yield ( ); be not persuaded by them; do not assent unto them (see Luk 16:6; Act 5:40; Act 17:4, etc.). The promise, etc.; . The word occurs above fifty times in the New Testament, and is always rendered “promise” in the A.V., except in 1Jn 1:5, where it is rendered both in the A.V. and the R.V. “message,” which is the literal meaning of the word. In Polybius it means “a summons.” Either of these meanings suits this passage better than “promise.”
Act 23:22
Let for then let, A.V.; go for depart, A.V.; charging for and charged, A.V.; tell for see then tell, A.V.; signified for showed, A.V. (see Act 23:15, note). Charging (as in Act 1:4; Act 4:18; Act 5:28, Act 5:40, etc.).
Act 23:23
Of the centurions for centurions, A.V.; and said for saying, A.V.; as far as for to, A.V. Two hundred soldiers; one hundred for each centurion; , foot-soldiers, who alone would be under the command of the centurions. The and the would be under the command perhaps of a , or decurio, captain of a turma, or squadron. Here there would seem to be two turmae because a turma consisted of thirty-three menhere possibly of thirty-five. Spearmen; . This word occurs nowhere else in Scripture or in any ancient Greek author. It is first found in” Theophylactus Simocatta, in the seventh century, and then again in the tenth century in Constantine Porphyrogenitus” (Meyer). It seems most probable that it was the name of some particular kind of light infantry. But it is not easy to explain the etymology. Perhaps they were a kind of skirmishers thrown out on a march to protect the flanks of an army; as Plutarch speaks of javelin-men and slingers being placed to guard, not only the rear, but also the flanks of the army on the march (Steph., ‘Thesaur.,’ under ). “Holding or taking the right” might be the force of the compound, somewhat after the analogy of , etc.; which agrees with the explanations of Phavorinus , and with that of Beza, “Qui alicui dextrum latus [meaning simply latus] munit.” Only, instead of the improbable notion of these men being a body-guard of the tribunewhich their number makes impossibleit should be understood of the troops which protect the flank of an army on the march. Other improbable explanations are that means the soldier to whom the right hand of prisoners was fastened, or those who grasp with the right hand their weapon, the lance or javelin. The object of Lysias in sending so large a force was to guard against the possibility of a rescue in the feverish and excited state of the Jewish mind. And no doubt one reason for sending Paul away was his dread of a Jewish riot.
Act 23:24
He bade them provide for provide, A.V, (the infinitive ); might for may, A.V.; thereon for on, A.V. Beasts (); here “riding-horses,” as Luk 10:34. In Rev 18:13 it is applied to “cattle;” in 1Co 15:39 it means “beasts” generally. In the LXX. it is used for all kinds of beastscattle, sheep, beasts of burden, etc. Beasts is in the plural, because one or more would be required for those who guarded Paul.
Act 23:25
Form for manner, A.V. After this form. Luke does not profess to give the letter verbatim, but merely its general tenor, which Lysias might have communicated to Paul, or which Paul might have learnt at Caesarea.
Act 23:26
Greeting for sendeth greeting, A.V. Governor; , as Act 23:24; propraetor of an imperial province, as distinguished from the , or proconsul, who governed the provinces which were in the patronage of the senate. Sergius Paulus (Act 13:7, Act 13:8) was a proconsul, and so was Gallio (Act 18:10); Pontius Pilate (Mat 27:2) and Felix were procurators, , only in a looser sense, as the more exact name of their office was procurator. Only, as they were appointed by the emperor, and often exercised the full functions of a legatus Caesaris, they were called as well as proprietors. Felix, called by Tacitus, Antonius Felix (‘Hist.,’ 5.9), was the brother of Pallas, the freedman and favorite of Claudius. He as well as his brother Felix had originally been the slave of Antonia the mother of the Emperor Claudius; and hence the name Antonins Felix, or, as he was sometimes otherwise celled, Claudius Felix. Tacitus, after mentioning that Claudius appointed as governors of Judaea sometimes knights and sometimes freedmen, adds that among the last Autenius Felix ruled this province with boundless cruelty and in the most arbitrary manner, showing by his abuse of power his servile origin. He adds that he married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, so that he was Mark Antony’s grandson-in-law, while Claudius was Antony’s grandson. But see Act 24:24, note. In the ‘Annals’ (12. 5) Tacitus further speaks of the incompetence of Felix to govern, stirring up rebellions by the means he took to repress them, and of the utter lawlessness and confusion to which the province was reduced by the maladministration of Felix and his colleague, Ventidius Cumanus (“cut pars provinciae habebatur”). He adds that civil war would have broken out if Quadratus, the Governor of Syria, had not interposed, and secured the punishment of Cumanus, while Felix, his equal in guilt, was continued in his government. This was owing, no doubt, to the influence of Pallas. The same influence secured the continued government to Felix upon Nero’s accession, Pallas being all-powerful with Agrippina. Such was “the most excellent governor Felix.” For further accounts of him, see Josephus (‘Bell. Jud.,’ 2. 12.8; 13.), who ignores his share in the government as the partner of Cumauus, and dates his appointment subsequently to the comdemnation of Cumanus at Rome, and is also there silent as to his misdeeds.
Act 23:27
Seized by for taken of, A.V.; was about to be slain for should have been killed, A.V.; when I came for then came I, A.V.; upon them with the soldiers for with an army, A.V.; learned for understood, A.V. The soldiers (, as Act 23:10). The army of the A.V. is out of place. Having learned, etc. Lysias departs here from strict truth, wishing, no doubt, to set off his zeal in defense of a Roman citizen, and also to anticipate any unfavorable report that Paul might give as to his threatened scourging.)
Act 23:28
Desiring to know for when 1 would have known, A.V.; down unto for forth into, A.V.
Act 23:29
Found for perceived, A.V.; about for of, A.V. Questions; , only in the Acts, where it occurs five times (Act 15:2; Act 18:15; Act 23:1-35. 29; Act 25:19; Act 26:3). St. Luke also uses (Act 25:20), as does St. Paul four times in the pastoral Epistles (1Ti 1:4, T.R.; 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 2:23; Tit 3:9).
Act 23:30
Shown to for told, A.V.; that there would be a plot against for how that the Jews laid wait for. A.V. and T.R.; I sent him to thee forthwith for I sent straight- way to thee, A.V.; charging for and gave commandment to, A.V.; to speak against him before thee for to say before thee what they had against him, A.V.; the R.T. omits farewell, in the A.V. That there would be a plot, etc. Two constructions are mixed up either by the writer of the letter, or by the transcriber. One would be , “When I was informed of the plot which was about to be laid against him;” the other, , “When I was informed that a plot was going to be laid,” etc. Against the man; , as Act 6:1; 1Co 6:1. But (instead of ), “to speak against” any one, is an unusual phrase. The T.R., which is retained by Mill, Alford, Wordsworth, Meyer, etc., is far more probable. Other readings are
Act 23:31
So for then, A.V. Antipatris; “forty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six from Caesarea, built (on the site of Kaphor Saba) by Herod the Great, and named in honor of Antipater, his father” (Alford). According to Howson, following the American traveller, the Rev. Eli Smith, the route lay from Jerusalem to Gophna, on the road to Nablous, and from Gophna, leaving the great north road by a Roman road of which many distinct traces remain, to Antipatris, avoiding Lydda or Diospolis altogether. Gophna is three hours from Jerusalem, and, as they started at 9 p.m., would be reached by midnight. Five or six hours more would bring them to Antipatris, most of the way being downhill from the hill country of Ephraim to the plain of Sharon. Attera halt of two or three hours, a march of six hours would bring them to Caesarea, which they may have reached in the afternoon.
Act 23:32
But on for on, A.V. On the morrow, after their departure from Jerusalem, not, as Alford suggests, after their departure from Antipatris. It was a forced march, and therefore would not occupy two days and a night.
Act 23:33
And they for who, A.V.; letter for epistle, A.V. Presented Paul; . This is a word particularly used of setting any one before a judge (see Rom 14:10, and the subscription of 2 Timothy, ).
Act 23:34
He for the governor, A.V. and T.R.; it for the fetter, A.V. Province; , only here and in Act 25:1. A general word for a government, most properly applied to an imperial province.
Act 23:35
Thy cause for thee, A.V.; also are for are also, A.V.; palace for judgment hall, A.V. I will hear thy cause; , found only here in the New Testament; but used in the same sense as here for “hearing a cause,” in Deu 1:16, , “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously,” A.V. See also Job 9:33, , “That might lay his hand upon us both,” A.V., i.e. judge between us. Palace ( ). The praetoriumfor it is a Latin wordwas originally the proctor’s tent in a Roman camp. Thence it came to signify the abode of the chief magistrate in a province, or a king’s palace. Herod‘s palace seems to have been a palace originally built by King Herod, and now used, either as the residence of the procurator or, as the mode of speaking rather indicates, for some public office. (For the use of the word , see Mat 27:27; Joh 18:28,Joh 18:33; Joh 19:9; Php 1:13.)
HOMILETICS
Act 23:1-11
Policy.
The characteristic quality of an Israelite indeed, as our Lord has taught us, is to be without guile. All kinds of trickery, deceit, false pretences, disguises, dissimulation, as well as downright falsehood, are entirely alien from the true Christian spirit. The man of God walks habitually in an atmosphere of transparent truth. He has nothing to conceal, nothing to simulate. He has to do with the God of truth, who searches all hearts, and from whom no secrets are hid. His one great object is to please God, and to live in all good conscience toward him. And it is a small thing with him to be judged of man’s judgment. And then, as regards one fruitful source of falsehood, fearfear of evil, of danger, of blame, the man of God is comparatively free from its influence, because he trusts in God, and commits the keeping of his soul to him as to a faithful Creator. God’s faithfulness and truth are his shield and buckler. Hid under the shadow of his protecting wings, he is safe. Even in the valley of the shadow of death he fears no evil, because God is with him. His only fear is lest he forfeit that omnipotent protection by conduct displeasing to God and unworthy of a Christian man. But is the man of God therefore to take no steps to secure his own safety? is he to use no sagacity, no wisdom, no prudence, to follow no line of good policy, by which danger may be avoided, and the enemies who seek to hurt him may be baffled and eluded? Surely this cannot be affirmed except on principles of fatalism, which equally preclude the taking of any steps towards the accomplishment of any end. To act wisely and discreetly, to take advantage of circumstances and opportunities as they arise, to bring about good results, and to avert evil ones, is as much the duty of a Christian as to sow in order that he may reap, or to take medicine in order that he may be healed. In the case before us, St. Paul was in imminent danger of being condemned by unrighteous judges. He saw that their passions and their prejudices were inflamed against him, and that his own integrity was no security against an unjust sentence. But he saw also that, though for the moment his judges were incited by their common hatred towards himself, there were strong elements of discord among them. He saw that on one of the leading truths of that gospel which he preachedthe resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting beyond the gravethe division between his enemies was at its height, and a large portion of his judges were on his side. It was therefore an act, not of guile or deceit, but of sagacity and policy, to take advantage of this circumstance, and to divide his opponents, and, under cover of their division, to save himself. And he did so with signal success. In doing so he has added one to many other examples, that the safety of the righteous lies in the disunion of sinners. It may be added that the vision, with its message, in Act 23:11, does not look as if St. Paul had sullied his bright conscience by any unworthy shifts when he stood before the council.
Act 23:12-35
Special providence.
It is difficult to define exactly what we mean by a special providence. Not one sparrow falls to the ground without our heavenly Father, who works all things after the counsel of his own will, and makes all things “work together for good to them that love him, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). And yet there are times and occasions when the overruling and controlling hand of God is seen more clearly and more markedly than usual, and when the interposition of human will and intention is more conspicuously absent. And perhaps this is what we mean when we speak of a special providence. Let us mark some of the circumstances detailed in this section, which seem to bring St. Paul’s escape from the Jews at this time under the category of a special providence. The danger was great and imminent. In the feverish excited state of the Jewish mind at this time, and when they were unable, through their weakness, to give effect to their intense hatred of their heathen masters, they were all the more ready to wreak their vengeance upon any more helpless victim who might fall into their hands. Such a victim was St. Paul; and already in the temple court and on the castle stairs, he had nearly forfeited his life to their violence. Again, in the council-chamber he was on the point of being torn in pieces by them. The danger, therefore, was very great which he had already escaped. But a greater was at hand. More than forty Jews, in whom guile, hatred, and fanaticism were a triple cord not easily to be broken, bound themselves together by a terrible curse to “remove“ that obnoxious life, and seemed to make their own lives dependent upon the fulfillment of their atrocious vow. It was nearly certain that a request, coming to Lysias from the chief officers of the Sanhedrim, to bring Paul down again for some further inquiry into his case, would be complied with, and, if so, his death was certain also. Now mark the providential circumstances by which this plot was defeated. Paul had a sister, and this sister had a son. We hear nothing and know nothing of either of these persons except on this critical occasion. Where the young man lived, how he happened to be at Jerusalem (unless it were to keep the Feast of Pentecost), whether he had been influenced by his uncle to embrace the Christian faith, or whether, as seems more probable, he was a zealous Jew, and as such entrusted with the secrets of the party, we know not. All we know is that he became acquainted with the conspiracy, and went immediately to the castle to inform Paul of it. His ready admission to the prisoner, the good-natured compliance of the centurion with Paul’s request to him to bring the young man to the chief captain, the chief captain’s courteous attention to the young man’s tale, and his instant determination to send Paul off by night to Caesarea, were the further links, each absolutely necessary, in the chain of providence, by which Paul’s escape was accomplished. But one other circumstance must be noted. It seems strange at first sight that the tribune of the Roman garrison should take so much trouble about one poor Jew, whom, moreover, he had only to keep a close prisoner in the castle to ensure his safety. But we have a ready explanation of this in Lysias’s own letter, and in what happened the day before, as recorded in Act 22:24-26. Lysias, not a Roman by birth, had committed a grave mistake in threatening Paul, a Roman citizen, with scourging. Such a mistake might have had grave consequences to himself. He therefore adroitly and promptly took a step to show his respect and reverence for the dignity of a Roman citizen, and also for the office of the Roman procurator, by sending Paul off to Caesarea. At the same time, by so doing he avoided the chance of a riot at Jerusalem, and threw the whole responsibility of dealing with Paul and his Jewish enemies upon Felix. Nothing could be more politic. What, however, it is to our purpose to observe is that, by this tangled tissue of motives and interests, and by this accidental combination of circumstances, God’s gracious purpose was brought about which he had announced to Paul in a vision of the night, saying, “Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast borne witness of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” The violence of the Sanhedrim (though they knew it not); the conspiracy of the Jews (though they knew it not); the courtesy and policy of Lysias (though he knew it not); as afterwards the intrigues of Felix, the weakness of Festus, and the urgent malice of the Jews,were all necessary steps, moving in a direction that they little suspected, for brining the apostle of the Gentiles to the capital of the Gentile world.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Act 23:1
Good conscience before God?
Those first words of Paul’s defense, which so greatly excited and angered the high priest, are capable of being taken in more senses than one. We may regard them in
I. THE SENSE IN WHICH THEY MUST BE FALSE. It is certain that Paul did not intend to say that he had never been conscious of defect and guilt in his relation to God. The time had been when he might have said so. As a scrupulous Pharisee, who was, “touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless,” he would consider himself without any reason for remorse. But “what things were gain to him,” those he “counted loss for Christ” (Php 3:7). He had come to the conclusion that the “way of peace” was not by faultlessness, but by forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ; he had sought and found” the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Php 3:9). And there is no living man who can look back upon all that he has said and done, and look in on all that he has been, and declare that he is conscious of no defect and no guiltiness before God,except, indeed, he is one whom sin has blinded, and who does not know how “poor, and blind, and naked” he is, in the sight of absolute purity. Comparing our conduct and examining our hearts in the light of God’s” exceeding broad commandment,” we are all included under sin. We have all to acknowledge much in the matter of positive transgression, and far more in that of unfulfilled obligation.
II. THE SENSE IN WHICH THIS MAY BE TRUE OF US ALL. It was true of Paul in this respect, that from the beginning of his Jewish course up to the time when he became a Christian, he had acted in accordance with his convictions; that his change of view was purely conscientious; and that from the beginning of his Christian career till that day he had steadfastly pursued the path in which God had directed him to walk. Every Christian man ought to be able to affirm this of himself, having regard to his entire Christian course. This conscious spiritual integrity:
1. Includes a sense of continued reconciliation and fellowship with God.
2. Includes unbroken uprightness of conduct, freedom from presumptuous and scandalous sin, and general conformity to the will of God in all the relations of life.
3. Admits of many failures and infirmities, which are acknowledged and resisted.
4. Results from that gracious influence from heaven which attends the waiting upon God (Isa 1:2, Isa 1:3; Isa 40:31).
III. THE FULLEST SENSE IN WHICH THEY CAN BE TRUE OF ANY ONE. Paul may have been able to use these words of every period of his life; but they can only be applied to the earlier part with a reservation. He could only feel that he had been honestly and earnestly pursuing a mistaken course during those years. Happy are they who, when the end arrives, are able to look back on a whole life devoted to truth, to heavenly wisdom, to holy usefulness; who, from childhood to old age, have spent their powers in the service of Christ. These have not to set off one part of their career against another part, but can rejoice to feel that, from the beginning “until this day,” they have, in the fullest sense, “lived in all good conscience before God.” Here is an argument
(1) for beginning at the earliest point;
(2) for continuing through the special temptations of mid-life;
(3) for persisting through the infirmities of later years, in the beauty of a holy Christian life, in the excellency of earnest work.C.
Act 23:3-10
Things dubious and things certain.
There are few passages of Scripture in which there are so many doubtful points in a small space.
I. THREE DOUBTFUL POINTS. It is uncertain:
1. What Paul meant by his apologetic remark (Act 23:5; see Exposition).
2. Whether he was justified in administering such a scathing rebuke, “God shall smite thee,” etc. It certainly looks much like the utterance of a man who for the moment has lost his self-control, and there seems to be ground for contrasting it with the calm dignity of the Master when he was smitten (Joh 18:22, Joh 18:23). The apostle laid no claim to perfection (Php 3:13 “perfect,” in Php 3:15, signifies mature, instructed, disciplined), and he may well have been provoked, at this time, into a resentment which he afterwards wished he had been able to master.
3. Whether he was right in classing himself with the Pharisaic party (Act 23:6). Though with them in those respects in which they differed from the Sadducees, and though, therefore, his words were formally correct, his spirit was so different from theirs, his principles were so opposite to theirs, his energies were so spent in combating theirs, that there was (or at least seems to have been) more of falsity than truth in his declaration. It is always a doubtful thing to say under pressure what we should never dream of saying under ordinary circumstances. But we may look at
II. THREE CERTAIN TRUTHS. It is certain:
1. That only intrinsic worth can long hold the honor of our fellow-men. If Paul was ready, as he was, to pay outward deference to “God’s high priest” (Act 23:4); if he was unwilling to “speak evil of the ruler of the people” (Act 23:5); he certainly held in small honor the particular high priest then pre- siding. Kings, judges, statesmen, ministers, may enjoy a temporary deference and an outward tribute as public officers; but if they are corrupt, if they are self-seeking, if they are indulgent, they will soon sink into dishonor and even into contempt. Only the worthy will continue to enjoy the esteem of their kind. Possibly a few of the shrewdest and most cunning have carried their honors to the grave, though they have deserved public reprobation, but these have passed to a scene where the veil will be torn off, and the long-outstanding penalty be required; but these are the few and not the many. Usually the pretender is unmasked here, and the iron hand of indignation comes down on the guilty head.
2. That it is an honorable and excellent thing to explain or apologize when one or the other is demanded.
(1) It is the right thing; it is due to those who have been misled or injured.
(2) It is the manly thing; it requires more courage, and courage of a higher order, to withdraw with expressions of regret than to maintain with the appearance of rectitude.
(3) It is the Christian thing; though, indeed, our Lord needed not to do this himself, yet we are sure it is in perfect accordance with his will: “If thy brother sin against thee, and he repent, forgive him, etc.
(4) It is the peaceful thing; to defend one’s position is to foment strife; to acknowledge error is to disarm resentment and promote peace.
3. That straightforwardness is the best course to pursue. It is very doubtful whether Paul gained anything by his adoption of this expedient; he was in the greatest danger of being “pulled in pieces” (Act 23:10). Such expediency as that which he employed may sometimes be rewarded by a temporary success. But the deepest and the longest success is the reward of sincerity and unswerving truth: the deepest, because our own self-respect is preserved inviolate and our integrity strengthened; the longest, for that which is founded on truth is built upon a rock, and is likeliest to endure.C.
Act 23:11-24
The powers that act on us from without.
Manifold are the powers which are acting upon our spirit and deciding our course and destiny. Some of these are suggested by this narrative.
I. THE MALEVOLENT HUMAN. (Act 23:12-15.) In this case human malevolence took a very violent and malignant form: it sought to compass Paul’s death by a dark and shameless stratagem. More often it seeks to do us injury for which we shall suffer, but from which we may recover. The very worst form which it assumes is that of aiming at our spiritual integrity, leading us into sin and so into shame and death.
II. THE INDIFFERENT HUMAN. (Act 23:18-24.) The Roman-centurion, chief captain, soldiertook no special interest in Paul, and had no prejudice against him. tie regarded the whole matter in a professional light, and acted in simple and strict accordance with his habits of obedience and command. Around us is human law, human custom, human societywith this we must lay our account. It will proceed on its usual course, like a train upon the lines laid down for it, with small concern for our hopes and fears, our joys and sorrows. If we take heed, we may avail ourselves of its help; if we are indiscreet, it wilt dash against us unpityingly. So far as we may do so and can do so, we must order ourselves so as to benefit by its strong force.
III. THE BENIGNANT HUMAN. (Act 23:16-21.) Paul’s sister induced her son to interpose, and the young man (or, youth) played his delicate and dangerous part well, intervening between these sanguinary schemers and their illustrious victim. We may hope for positive sympathy and active aid from
(1) those who are closely and tenderly related to us;
(2) those who are young, and therefore open to many admirable inspirations (obedience, pity, courage, aspiration, etc.);
(3) those who have spiritual affinities with us, to whom we are brethren or fathers “in the Lord.”
IV. THE DIVINE. (Act 23:16.) At this troublous and anxious time, when Paul was cut off from fellowship with the disciples, the Master himself drew near to him. He came with his comforting presence and his cheering word. He did not fail his servant then; nor will he fail his faithful followers now. We may reckon upon
(1) his comforting presence with us;
(2) his word of promise and cheer;
(3) his summons to bear witness in the future as in the past: “As thou hast testified so must thou,” etc. While all these powers are acting upon us, we must play our own part manfully, or the issue will be unfavorable (Act 23:17). When all is done for or against us, we must make our own choice, decide for ourselves which of the two paths we will pursue, at which gate we shall be found when the journey of life is over (.Gal 6:4, Gal 6:5).C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Act 23:12-35
Paul at Caesarea.
I. “THE LORD IS MINDFUL OF HIS OWN.” Recall the beautiful song in Mendelssohn’s ‘St. Paul.’
1. The craft of their foes. They conspire against the righteous with a zeal worthy of a better cause (Act 23:12, Act 23:13); and cloak their designs under pious pretexts (Act 23:14,Act 23:15). 2. The Divine protection. He brings the counsels of wickedness to light (Act 23:16). The young man, whoever he was, Christian Or otherwise, became, in Divine providence, a guardian angel of the apostle.
“Nothing so fine is spun, to the help of the good and the confusion of the wicked (cf. Psa 7:15; Psa 34:8). Sincerity and good faith are found where they are least expected, when God is guiding the hearts of men (Act 23:18).
II. THE GRACIOUS DELIVERANCE. (Act 23:23-35.)
1. They are withdrawn from the snares of their foes. Paul, surrounded by the military guard, seems a visible picture of the angels of God encamping about those who fear him. “Against forty bandits he sends five hundred protectors.”
2. Testimony to the truth is furnished on their behalf (Act 23:27, etc.). The honorable and straightforward dealing of the heathen Romans stands in contrast to that of the orthodox Jews. Better have the spirit of the Law without the letter than the letter without the spirit. The very indifferentism of the Romans becomes overruled for the deliverance of Paul. Guarded in the palace of Herod, Paul has time for reflection and prayer. The intervals el arduous labor, the moments of respite from toil and conflict,in these we may find proofs of the nearness and tenderness of God.J.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Act 23:1-10
Paul before the Sanhedrim.
I. A SUGGESTIVE CONTRAST between corrupt ecclesiasticism and secular power. The bigotry, intolerance, personal animosity, unfairness, fanatical cruelty, all finding abundant confirmation in the history of the persecutions emanating from the papacy. Lysias was cruel because he was reckless and followed bad customs, but Ananias was cruel because he was spiteful and tyrannical.
II. THE MASTER‘S PREDICTION FULFILLLED. Such a scene was what the servants of Christ were told to prepare for. The apostle’s infirmity, compared with the Savior’s perfect self-possession and patience, shows that the highest of merely human characters tall far below the Divine goodness in Christ. Yet the instant apology, so courteously expressed, shows that the ruffle was only on the surface. The mistake was a natural one, and the provocation was great.
III. THE CORRUPTION OF JUDAISM EXHIBITED. Whether Paul acted blamelessly in appealing to Pharisees against Sadducees may be an open question, but, as he was brought before the highest religious authority of Judaism, and the Jews of that time rejected the reformation which Christianity in the person of Paul presented to them, it was a challenge to Jewish orthodoxy to vindicate itself if it could. And all the apostle probably meant was that he had been brought up in the orthodox school, and that Christianity was no heresy to the substance of Jewish teaching. The discussion which followed revealed the utter decay of Judaism. The heart of it was eaten out with skepticism and pride. The orthodox had no moral influence. The heterodox were powerful enough to fight successfully their battle against the rulers, which was another proof, like the crucifixion of Jesus, that the Jewish state was ripe for judgment. The Messiahship of Christ rested on the facts of the Resurrection.
IV. THE HOLLOW HYPOCRISY OF UNBELIEF. The Sadducees were not open to conviction. Nor are unbelievers generally. Their professed love of truth is sincere. They will inquire in order to decry, but not to reach a conclusion contrary to their inclinations. No dogmatists are so bigoted and so tyrannical as the dogmatists of the Sadducean school. As in Paul’s time, so still, worldly influence is called in to help unbelief. The Sadducees were the wealthy party. There was a root of faith in the Pharisaic school, but it was being destroyed by worldliness, and they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Had the Sadducees been willing to hear Paul, they might have been convinced of their own error. Had the Pharisees not hoped for victory over their antagonists more than for light, the council might have been held.R.
Act 23:3
The human judge in the presence of the Divine.
“Sittest thou to judge me,” etc.?.
I. The law of man rests on the Law of God.
1. In its aims.
2. In its execution.
II. The blessing of a faithfully kept and righteously administered system of justice, which, notwithstanding all human infirmities, can be maintained.
III. The bar of human law both a prediction and an evidence of the future judgment. Yet the imperfections of earthly justice remind us that God shall make up all inequalities, and show hereafter perfectly that all justice is love.
IV. The corruption of Jewish Law proved the necessity of a better law, the law of Christ, which is not a despotic law, but “peace, and righteousness, and joy in the Holy Ghost;” not smiting our neighbor, but “bearing one another’s burdens.”R.
Act 23:11
Light in the darkness.
“And the night following,” etc. Review the position of the apostle. In prison. Hated by the Jews. Only rescued by a heathen hand, which itself may be turned against him. Perplexed by his own thoughts (el. Elijah in the cave at Mount Horeb). Conflict of fears and desireshis hope to do greater things, his desire to see Rome; his sense of a great vocation as the leading missionary; his apparent helplessness among his enemies. The vision had a twofold purposeto prepare the apostle for its work, to give encouragement to all who resembled him in single-heartedness and spiritual heroism.
I. THE ASSURANCE GIVEN.
1. The strengthening of faith in the personal Redeemer. His resurrection; his sympathy; his approval of the apostle’s life; the progress of his kingdom.
2. The certainty conveyed that all that would occur in Jerusalem would be overruled for good.
3. The prospect held out corresponding to the apostle’s own aims and desires, that Rome would be visiteda prospect which emboldened him to appeal to Caesar, although it might lead to greater sufferings eventually.
II. THE LESSON TAUGHT.
1. In the darkest night the appearance of Jesus is new strength.
2. Faithful and heroic work is never left without encouragement.
3. Though visions of the night may not be granted to the Church now, except on very rare occasions, still there are foresights of the future which can be obtained by deep insight, prayerful vigilance, elevated faith and. study of events in the light of the Savior’s words, and the facts of his past intercourse with his disciples.
4. Holy ambition is accompanied with the spirit of apostolic self*devotion, and is rewarded with the accomplishment of our desires. “Expect great things; attempt great things.” Why not aim at Rome? James and John were not reproved by Christ for desiring a place beside him, but were reminded that they must purge all such desires of the sordid and selfish, and be prepared for the baptism of blood. If we take up the cross, we may sit with Jesus on the throne.
5. The highest description of a Christian’s life is “bearing witness.” Christ is all and in all we reflect his light. Even at Rome a simple testimony is enough.R.
Act 23:12-35
Conspiracy defeated.
The “must“ of the Lord’s midnight message interpreted by events. Divine providence working. The Christian stands still and sees the salvation. The Word of God is instead of human calculations and predictions. How different from fatalism in such a case as Livingstone in the dangers of his African mission reminds us that there is a feeling of confidence in our weakness which is like a vision in the night. Notice
I. THE GUILT OF FANATICISM. The forty conspirators thought that they were doing God service. They divulged the oath to the chief priests and elders. It was, by their silence, appropriated as the deed of the whole Sanhedrim. The blindness of their passion secured its own defeat.
II. THE DIVINE INTERPOSITION TO PROTECT. The sister of Paul probably not a Christian. The boy attached to his uncle, showing the affectionate nature of the apostle. A weak instrument chosen of God to accomplish a great work. The soldierly feeling of the captain aroused, and his sympathy with a fellow-citizen of Rome. Human agents controlled and directed by Divine influences.
III. ROMAN DESPATCH AND DISCIPLINE called, again, into the service of the gospel The promise of the Lord was being fulfilled, though in a way unanticipated by Paul. Caesarea revisited under very different circumstances. The lonely, persecuted Jew becoming important. Felix put on his mettle. The contrast between the two worldsthe world of Judaism and the world of imperialism. The prisoner going to Caesarea suggests what is wanted to deliver mankind from boththe cruelty of fanatics and the cruelty of despots and military ambition. The simplicity, heroism, all-conquering love of the Christian ambassador. “got by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” It was a significant change from Lysias’s fortress at Jerusalem to Herod’s palace at Caesarea. The gospel was challenging the world.R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Act 23:1-5
A threefold example of true greatness.
Every careful reader of the Testament is aware that there is obscurity present to a certain degree in this passage. The obscurity is of a nature not very likely to yield to timid treatment. It does not seem likely that there remain facts of history which would clear it up, for instance. Rather would it seem the preferable course to face at once the difficulty, to narrow its dimensions to the smallest compass, and to admit that it is not evident how it was that Paul failed to know the thing that he said he did not knowwhether this were that Ananias was the high priest, or whether it were that it was Ananias who uttered the command to smite him on the mouth. For this is one among many instances of the sort of difficulty that offers no impossibility of reaching a very feasible explanation, but only perplexity and uncertainty, as to which among several may have been the actual explanation. All, however, that is now incumbent on ourselves is to accept in all good faith Paul’s statement, and the lessons which may be suggested by what is before us will not be prejudiced. We have in the passage a threefold exemplification of the greatness that is open even to human character and life.
I. THE GREATNESS OF A GREAT IDEA AND RULE OF LIFE. There is no reason to think that Paul said what exceeded in the least degree the facts.
1. He owned to a conscience.
2. He owned to the principle that conscience ought to be accepted as guide.
3. He owned to the duty of accepting the governance of that conscience in things great and smallin “all things.”
4. He glanced, to say the least, and very significantly, at the fact that conscience, too, had its Superior, its Master, its Judgethe living “God“ himself. A life led through the length of its intelligent period in obedience to conscience is a life that will have steadiness, consistency, strength, about it. Equally noticeable is it that human greatness, where it may most really touch the mark, will own, as it did notably in the case of Saul, to much mixture of imperfection, to much possibility of error, to grand oversights, even if conscience be its guide, unless that conscience is informed, is divinely informed, and is refreshed by the light of the Spirit of all true guiding.
II. THE GREATNESS THAT CANNOT PROVE STOICAL WHEN MORAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE AT STAKE.
1. Paul feels an intense scorn of the thing that Ananias does.
2. Though by exposing it, and trenchantly, in the face of open court, he exposed himself also to have it thought and said that personal resentment partly accounts for his conduct, yet Paul was content to run the risk of this. Many do now think that the conduct of Paul and his language here contrast unfavorably with what might have been, and detract something from the force of his righteous indignation-on a righteous occasion. Them is, however, such a thing as a noble disregard of fair fame, that a purer offering may be made to one thingthe hit fame of truth. Igor do we think that anything less than this is the truth here of Paul. If his utterance were the result of personal resentment simply, it certainly could not have had the remotest chance of working well for him personally. If the utterance were the child of personal resentment exclusively, the suppression of it would have been the suppression of an actual and legitimate instinct. But there is no evidence of this, nor even looking this way. For
(1) Paul’s remonstrance is worded so as to exhibit the insult done to righteousness, not to himself. And
(2) not only is there not a trace of temper, but there is abundant indication immediately succeeding that Paul had himself under perfect control.
3. Paul expresses no wish for the punishment of Ananias, but he firmly declares the abundantly likely retribution of God. He certainly leaves his own case in the hands of him to whom “judgment belongeth.” And his language is no bitter retort, invective, or imprecation. It is no sign of either humility or greatness to hide out of sight our own strong convictions or our strong faith in God’s moral government, just because the instance in question may arise in our own history. Therefore, while on the one hand the actual words employed by Paul receive unimpeachable justification from those of Jesus himself (Mat 23:1-39. 27), the spirit he manifested does not expose itself to censure in comparison with even that of Jesus (Joh 18:22, Joh 18:23), for the simple reason that it does not offer to come into comparison with it, the occasions having their material points of difference as well as of resemblance. The wonderful and divinest meekness of Jesus is indeed ever imitable, but it does not follow that every possible occasion of meekness is a right occasion for it. It may be that stern duty shall allow no option, and its more painful behest be the word of crushing rebuke (as here) rather than the tones of mercy and meekness.
III. THE GREATNESS THAT WAITS, READY TO ADMIT THAT A THING DONE BY ONE‘S SELF MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER LEFT UNDONE. There are many things that may aggravate or diminish the blame of error. Rare as they are, there are such things as genuine explanations of error, which leave no fault with the person who nevertheless has been the perpetrator of it. Possibly Paul may be justly credited with some blame in not knowing to whom he spoke before he spoke, just as the language which he used may possibly be liable to some censure. But, anyway, the occasion is a fit one to remind us of these things:
1. That it is one sign of a great dispositionother things being equalto be open to acknowledge error.
2. That this is a much more effectual sign, when all the circumstances of an occasion (as now) make the admission one of peculiar difficulty.
3. That worth is added to any such acknowledgment when, after all, the error is one in manner only, and emphatically not in matter, and. when it lies in the accidents rather than in the merits of the subject. Though it were only such an error, Paul publicly admits it, and quotes chapter and verse, as it were, to his own disadvantage.
4. That this virtue is especially the growth of Christian teaching, Christian principles. The germ of this virtue so rare lies in the truth, the sincerity, the purity to which Christianity invites our supreme homage.B.
Act 23:6
The hope of the living and the resurrection of the dead.
“The hope and resurrection of the dead.” The chapter in which these words are found offers a striking illustration of the irresistible force of providence, or of providence and the direct acts of the Spirit in co-operation. The day was dark for Paul, nor did there seem a glimmer of hope of any justice for him at the hands of the council before whom he stood. But words and wisdom were found either by him or for him. Those words of wisdom were the weighty words of the text. The mere utterance of them rent the council in twain; soon compelled the chief captain to come again to the rescue, in place of shirking his duty, as by a side move he had wished to do; left an enraged populace no chance, as they thought, of disposing of Paul except by a murderous conspiracy; necessitated the removal of Paul by the governor under a sufficient military escort to another place and another court of trial, which in its turn led on directly to Paul’s appeal to Caesar and arrival in the capital of the world. And weighty indeed were those wordswords which may be numbered as two; for they were weighted with the solemn meaning and inscrutable mystery of a whole world. They touch all that, is deepest in questions between God and man. They hold, in fact, the one question that lies hidden down m some of its aspects in mystery unfathomably deep. Notice, then
I. THE HOPE HERE INTENDED. The expression may mean simply “the hope of Israel” (Act 26:6-8; Act 28:20). But if it do mean this, it is instanced as having for its chief implication the revelation of immortality in and by Jesus. Or it may mean more specifically Israel’s “hope in and for the resurrection of the dead,” though for obvious reasons Paul omits the word “Israel“a wider resurrection than that of Israel merely being deep in his heart (Act 24:15). The expression says “the hope,” either absolutely or “of the dead.“ The ambiguity of expression is immaterial, because there is none of meaning. And grand indeed are the suggestions that come of the language employed.
1. “The hope” must be universal. The laborious and far-fetched exceptions that possibly might be produced would be infinitely insignificant, and might be accounted for in, perhaps, every case by moral reasons, though the most disastrous.
2. “The hope” must be of the very chiefest that can stir human hearts.
3. “The hope” carries in it the highest argument and testimony of the Creator of those hearts.
4. “The hope” must determine the great leading tracks of our thoughts of God and thoughts toward him. If he is only our God up to the grave, the greatest feeders of human regard, awe, devotion, are ruthlessly cut off at one stroke. Wonder because of him, fear toward him, love for him, wither away rootless and profitless. According as we find ground for this hope or were to fail to find it, our notions of God must be trustful or doubting, loving or callous, aspiring or ruinously baffled, and our own life rearing itself to air and light or cruelly beaten down to earth. Yes, the hope of universal man, his deepest hope, his last hope, his highest kind of hope, his most governing hope, is the hope that those called “the dead” are not dead, but that they “all live.” For “the dead” the living hope this, and they hope it for themselves, ere they, too, shall be numbered among that number. Upon the basis of this hope rises the superstructure of our leading views of God, as of our forecasts of self.
II. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD HERE SPOKEN OF. The resurrection of the dead (in the sense of the resurrection in any tenable philosophical sense of the body) is, beyond doubt, the specific revelation of Christianity. The Christian revelation of the resurrection of the body avails:
1. To guide human thoughts as to the method of the transition from mortality to immortality. Whatever may be the facts as to the disembodied and intermediate state, the resurrection of the body sufficiently fixes for us the form of the immortal life, and gives definiteness to our conception of it.
2. This revealed method evidently guarantees the maintenance of individuality in the immortal life.
3. For quite similar reason it postulates the continuous identity of the individual.
4. It surely infers the responsibility of the individual. No one for one moment contends for human responsibility or for human irresponsibility in this poor lower life. That those who have known it for the years of life’s brief span should ignore it, at the first moment when its commanding character would receive forcible illustration, is incredible.
5. The resurrection of the dead indefinitely enlarges the entire character of man. Were the truth now conceivably subtracted from the wealth of truth which is our present possession, it would condemn us to a poverty of distressing misery. No more appalling type of the truncated could be found the world around. When Paul introduced with powerful voice and distinctest of utterance this twofold expression of the grandest and the most fundamental fact of human nature, he threw, doubtless, the apple of discord into the midst of Pharisees and Sadducees, and he did it designedly. But he was gaining a hearing for the truth that carries humanity’s highest outlook in it. He was making a fresh appeal to all that is greatest and deepest in human nature. He was reminding a hardened multitude of what should most raise them and endear the Christ who came from God to them. And he was preaching to them, not what could be construed into “a hard saying,” but what was fitted to be perennial inspiration. Let us see to it that it may be to us what it should have been, but was not, to them.B.
Act 23:11
The sympathizing and mindful Master.
We may justly suppose that, after the life, activity, and intense excitement of that day, a reaction set in for Paul with the time of darkness and enforced rest. Those who toil for their Lord all day will not find themselves forgotten in their night of darkness, of uncertainty, of trouble. The comfort of Jesus is in this night brought to Paul. And the way in which it was brought to him must have been most grateful. That comfort offered itself in several degrees.
I. THE LORD HIMSELF APPEARS. What an honor! What a kindness! What a comfort!
II. THE LORD HIMSELF “STANDS BY” PAUL. What a condescension! What a really brotherly helping!
III. THE LORD HIMSELF SPEAKS WORDS OF GOOD CHEER. What a help for Paul, that voice! He had known different tones of voice of Jesus. What a gracious variety, this! What a close suggestion also of the faithful watching of the Lord over his faithful servant! He “had seen,” he “had seen” the sorrowing, wearied, grieved spirit of Paul, and had come to stay his affliction by the direct exhortation, “Be of good cheer.”
IV. THE LORD UTTERS A KINDLY SUGGESTION, BETOKENING KINDLY REMEMBRANCE OF PAUL‘S PAST WITNESS AT JERUSALEM, THOUGH IT WAS EVEN HE WHO HAD PEREMPTORILY CUT IT SHORT, AND HAD SAID, “DEPART!”
V. THE LORD ASSURES HIM OF DISTINGUISHED FUTURE SERVICE FOR HIM.
1. This will put to flight all cares and anxieties as to the result of this trial, as to the fear of assassination, as to the uncertainty of his future career on earth.
2. It puts to flight all self-reproaching fears as to whether, “for his unworthiness,” he was now to he cast aside. No; he is still a vessel meet for the Master’s usea weapon, polished, and not to be cast aside or laid aside.
VI. THE LORD MAKES A VERY SELECTION OF WORDS THAT CARRY COMFORT AND STRENGTH WITH THEM. “Thou must bear witness also at Rome.” His Lord needs him and relies on him. And says he can depend on him who had done his work so well “in Jerusalem.”B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Act 23:1
A good conscience.
Joubert says, “The trick of personifying words is a fatal source of mischief in theology.” The personifying has been mischievously applied to the word “conscience,” and we make it into a kind of separate, being, by’ whom, apart from our own judgment and will, our conduct is regulated. Having m mind the descent of Minerva, in the form of an aged man, to accompany young Telemachus in the search for his father, we speak of “conscience” as an inward Mentor. The philosophical questions that arise concerning the nature and testimony of conscience may be briefly referred to, especially these two:
(1) Is conscience a separate and independent power? or
(2) Is conscience our faculty of judgment exercised concerning our own actions? We approve of the second view, and regard it as “the secret judgment of the soul, which gives its approbation to actions that it thinks good, or reproaches itself with those which it believes to be evil.” Here, in our text, St. Paul is not thinking of the absolute right and wrong, but of the ceremonial claims which rested on a pious Jew, and says that, in relation to the formal rules of his religion, he had a “good conscience,” “a conscience void of offence,” a sense of having always striven to be loyal and faithful. The word “good” is a general word, and we may understand St. Paul better if we try to see what it may be regarded as including.
1. AN ENLIGHTENED CONSCIENCE. For, apart from the bare distinction of the absolute right and absolute wrong, conscience must be dependent on knowledge. All its finer and more precise testimonies come out of its culture. Our advances in education and moral training involve the quickening and enlightening of the conscience. The advanced man finds it altogether a more subtle guard of his life and conduct. It becomes keenly sensitive to the “beautiful” and the “becoming,” as well as to the “right.“ This is illustrated in the case of the apostle himself; at one time “he verily thought within himself that he ought to do many thinest, contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth.” With the letters in his hand authorizing the persecutions of the Damascene Christians, his unenlightened conscience made no testimony of his wrongness, and offered no reproaches. By-and-by, when the revelation of the Messiahship of Jesus came to his understanding and heart, then conscience smote him, and he felt the exceeding shame of his past doings. It may be shown that all which cultures a man quickens and sensitizes conscience; but the greatest enlightener is the personal reception of Christ as our Savior. Then we begin to see ourselves, and to make the true estimate of conduct, spirit, and life. If we are responsible for making the best of our opportunities for self-culture, we may be said to be also responsible for the measure of enlightenment of our conscience.
II. A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, By which qualifying term we may mean:
1. One that can make decisions and testimonies in a firm, decided way, with no uncertainties or doubtings, no “maybe” or “perhaps.” Conduct is greatly dependent on prompt, clear decisions of the judgment, and these follow simple witness of the conscience to the right and wrong, the true and the beautiful.
2. The term “clear” may mean free from the deteriorating influence of bad principles and fixed evil habits. A man may so live that his conscience has always a thick, foul atmosphere to speak through, and gets sadly defiled thereby. A man may come even to read his conscience in the light of his inclinations. “Keep conscience as the noon-tide clear.”
III. AN APPROVING CONSCIENCE. One that commended his actions. It is well when the constant witness of conscience is favorable, He lives a hard life who knows the daily conflict of conduct and conscience, There can be no peace until the conscience may be quiet, or only give its approvals. Precisely the result of our gaining peace with God is our gaining peace with ourselves. Our wills regenerated, we are no longer disposed to resist the leadings of our conscience. In speaking of this subject we should remember that conscience “is not an infallible guide, but requires illumination, and therefore each man needs to pray for light; but it is never right to act against its dictates.”R.T.
Act 23:3
Passion under insult.
We may at once say that, though much excuse may be found for St. Paul, he was quite below the Christian standard in making such an answer to the official. He was certainly far below his Divine Master, who, “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed him. self to him who judgeth righteously.” A probable explanation of St. Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest is given by Michaelis: “Soon after the holding of the first council at Jerusalem, Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, was deprived of the high priest’s office for certain acts of violence, and sent to Rome, whence he was afterwards released, and returned to Jerusalem. Between the death of Jonathan, who succeeded him and who was murdered by Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with this office by Agrippa, an interval elapsed in which this dignity was vacant. This was at the time when Paul was apprehended, and the Sanhedrim, being destitute of a president, Ananias undertook the office. It is probable that Paul was ignorant of this circumstance.” The incident may suggest to us
I. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF INDIGNATION. Distinguish between “anger,” which is generally used for quick passionate temper, often both unreasoning and unreasonable, and “indignation,” which is the proper uprising of our nature against wrong. We seldom do well to be “angry;” we always do well to be “indignant.” Anger suggests feeling mastering judgment; indignation suggests judgment giving character to feeling. Every man ought to be sensitive to wrong, whether it be done to others or to himself. The question for him concerns, not the feeling of indignation, but the forms in which such indignation may find expression. St. Paul ought to be indignant at the offering of such an insult, by one who occupied the position of a judge. “St. Paul’s prompt and stern utterance perhaps anticipated compliance with this direction, which was quite illegal in itself, and must have been considered to be aggravated as given against a Roman citizen, placed at a Jewish bar by the Roman commandant.” For a similar insult offered to our Lord, see Joh 18:22.
II. THE NOBILITY OF THE MAN WHO CAN APOLOGIZE EVEN FOR HIS RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATIONS. At once, in the spirit of the Christian gentleman, as soon as the official position of the person whom he had answered was pointed out to him, he expressed his regret. Some have, indeed, thought that he meant to say such conduct as that of Ananias made it impossible to regard him as the high priest, but it is more simple to read in his words some sense of his having yielded to his sensitive and intense feelings. Impulsive men are usually quick to acknowledge their faults, and to remove any evil impressions which their conduct or language may have produced. The highest virtue is the self-mastery that keeps us from making such mistakes; but the next virtue is a cheerful and humble readiness to make amends when our mistakes, or our hasty language, have injured another.
III. THE HIGHER RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE MASTERY OF INDIGNATION BY THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, Just as there is a “righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,” so there is a righteousness which exceeds the worldly maxims and moral rules which guide ordinary men. It may be right to resent insult, but, from the Christian standpoint, it is much more right to bear it, and be patient under it, and forgive it. And such righteousness is illustrated in the scenes of our Lord’s trial, when contumely was heaped upon him. Show that few things offer a severer test of Christian virtue than unprovoked and unreasonable insult. By it even the watchful man may be taken at unawares, and be suddenly moved to passion. Only the constant habit of thinking before we speak, and letting the moments of thinking be moments of prayer, can keep us in the trying hour. St. Paul’s reset for his hasty words would be more profound before God than before men. He found a serious and humbling lesson in this mistake. Impress how often we err, and disgrace our Christian profession, by the tone and temper in which we “answer back.”R.T.
Act 23:6
The resurrection a dividing doctrine.
If the supposition be a correct one that, just at this time, there was no high priest, we can well understand how easily divisions and contentions might be aroused in the mixed council, where party feeling was always strong. The Pharisees and Sadducees were really more political than ecclesiastical parties; they had distinct lines of thought, and conflicted for the positions of supreme influence in the ecclesiastico-political life of the nation. Both parties vigorously opposed Christianity, but the Pharisees on the ground of its teachingsas they thought themagainst Mosaism, and of its degrading the national hope of Messiah, by affirming that he had come in the person of the Galilaean Jesus. The Sadducees on the ground chiefly of the disciples’ affirmation that Jesus had risen from the dead, which, they were quick to see, it once admitted, involved the truth of our Lord’s claim to the Messiahship. St. Paul evidently estimated, quickly and skillfully, the character of the judges before whom he was brought, and easily turned them from the consideration of his case to mere party wrangling. He saw, plainly enough, that there was no chance of a fair judgment from either party. If we must recognize some guilefulness in St. Paul’s conduct on this occasion, we must remember that he had to deal with party prejudice and unreasoning hatred, and he was justified in securing his deliverance by such a quick-witted device. We observe
I. THAT THE JEWISH RESURRECTION WAS A DREAM OR A DOCTRINE, To the Sadducees a mere superstitious dream, to the Pharisees an important doctrine. Hints of it are found in the earlier Scriptures, but the Old Testament has no clear testimony on the subject. This is not really remarkable, because Mosaism did not take this point of view; it did not demand obedience upon the promise of the “life to come,” but upon promise of “the life that now is.” Thoughts of resurrection and eternal life do not properly come to a Jew as a Jew, only to a Jew as a personally devout, God-fearing man, with an individual spiritual life of fellowship with God. Therefore the psalmists and prophets alone give us hints of resurrection. See what helps come to the idea
(1) from the translations of Enoch and Elijah;
(2) from the resurrections to natural life wrought by Elijah and Elisha;
(3) from the expressions used in the Book of Job, and in the Psalms; and
(4) from allusions in the prophets. Exactly in what sense the Pharisees believed in resurrection it is difficult to say. Clearly they had no notion of that spiritual body in which Christ reappeared among men, and we also must appear. Probably they held the doctrine very much as we hold some of our doctrines, merely for a battleground. The Sadducees had not much difficulty in showing that such a resurrection was a mere dream.
II. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RESURRECTION IS A TRUTH AND A HOPE. St. Paul calls it here a hope, but it is really a truth upon which we may build our hopes. Illustrate by showing what St. Paul writes about itabout its foundations and about its vital importance to the Christianin 1Co 15:1-58. To him it was no mere dividing doctrine, though among foes he ventured so to use it; to him it was infinitely sure and infinitely preciousthe message to him of his Redeemer’s own resurrection, He labored, if “by any means he might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”
III. WHEREIN MAY WE FIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND THE, CHRISTIAN IDEAS OF RESURRECTION? We only note one of the more important differences. Pharisees had only, as aids to their conception, cases of resurrection which were merely a temporary restoration of bodily life. All the risen ones they could know of died a natural death. Christians take their conception from the resurrection of their Lord, which was to a spiritual, incorruptible, and eternal life.R.T.
Act 23:11
Divine cheer in anxious hours.
One of St. Paul’s marked peculiarities was sensitiveness to Divine visions and communications. Such visions are indeed granted only in the sovereignty of Divine grace; but we may see that they are granted only to such persons as are receptive, and likely to be influenced aright by them. The same remark may be made concerning “visions” and “miracles “and all special modes of Divine communication. They are conditioned as truly by what man can receive as by what God can grant; and this may sufficiently explain why we have no visions or miracles now. On St. Paul’s sensitiveness to the Divine nearness, note
(1) that his Christian life began in a vision and revelation;
(2) that his labors had been directed in a special manner; and
(3) that the culture of his spiritual life involved the quick, clear vision of the “unseen.” Show what an anxious day this had been to the apostle. He estimated the malice of the Jewish party, and knew well that nothing short of his death would satisfy these zealots. No doubt he spent much time in prayer, and, as a response, there came this vision of his glorified Lord, and the cheering and assuring message. Our Lord gave his personal cheerings to St. Paulby manifestation and messageon all the great occasions of perplexity and danger in the apostle’s career (see Act 18:9; Act 17:22-25, etc.). We may see that, in this instance before us, the grounds on which the apostle should be of “good cheer” were partly expressed and partly assumed.
I. “BE OF GOOD CHEER;” FOR YOU SHALL STILL WORK AND WITNESS. No joy to St. Paul could be compared with this, that he might be longer spared to work for his Divine Master. True, he could say that “to die is gain,” but he could unfeigned]y rejoice with his disciples that he was “to continue with them all for their furtherance and joy in faith.” On this occasion, taken back to the castle in the charge of the Roman guard, he might reasonably have felt despondent. “To human apprehension there was at this time nothing between the apostle and death but the shelter afforded in the Roman barrack.” He might fear that his work was done. All earnest Christian workers know what times of depression and despondency mean. Even after successful work there may come the feeling of exhaustion, and we may say, like Elijah, “Let me die, for I am not better [more successful] than my fathers.” To Elijah, to St. Paul, and to us, at such times, the best of all cheer is the message, “The Lord hath need of thee” yet awhile. With such cheer the clouds pass; we can smile again on life. We are lifted up above our difficult circumstances and our exceeding perils. We learn that if bearing and battling have to be our lot, it is but for a while; we shall battle through, and we shall even serve God in the battling. This is good cheer indeed. “Christ shall still be magnified in our body, whether it be by life or by death.”
II. “BE OF GOOD CHEER;” FOR I AM WITH YOU. This is the comforting which is assumed rather than expressed. Christ “stood by” the apostle, but it was only his coming out of the invisible into the visible. St. Paul only saw what was the permanent fact. His Lord was always standing by him, always within the visions of his soul. And there is no cheer for us like this. Compare the intense anxiety of Moses to be sure that Jehovah was present in the camp. “If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.” it was perfect rest for anxious Moses to hear Jehovah respond, saying, “My presence shall go with thee.” What is in this case assumed is actually expressed to St. Paul in some of his other visions. At Corinth Christ had said, “Be not afraid for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee.” Still, we know that trial is nothing, if Jesus is with us, helping us to bear; and work is nothing, if Jesus is with us, helping us to do. “I can do all things, and can bear all sufferings, if my Lord be there.” Then impress what is for us the real cheer of life.
1. Work.
2. God’s presence the inspiration and the strength of our working.
3. The inward consciousness that God’s approval rests upon our work.
In our text Christ did but assure St. Paul, what he also assures us, that “man is immortal until his work is done.” No arrow can pierce any one of us until our last battle has been fought, and it is enough that our Lord knows when our bit of service for him is complete.R.T.
Act 23:16
Providential protections.
There is a time for miracle to work, and a time for providence to work, and the appropriate times the Lord of infinite wisdom and knowledge alone can arrange. It seems very strange to us that St. Peter should have been brought out of prison by the miraculous deliverances of an angel, and that St. Paul should be left dependent on the accident, as some would call it, of his nephew’s overhearing the plot against his life. Yet, perhaps, there is no real difference between a “miraculous” and a “providential“ deliverance. Both are Divine interventions on behalf of God’s servants, and both are simply adaptations of the intervention to particular cases. When we can get a fuller and worthier conception of God’s working in the “natural,” we shall probably lose sight of the distinction which we now make between the “natural and the supernatural.“ And this we shall do, not by losing the “supernatural,” but by losing the “natural,” and seeing that all Divine workings are beyond mere “nature,” beyond mere human energy. We shall find Divine energy in the flowers, and trees, and sunshine, and storms, and in the genius, art, and poetry of man. We shall not “level down,” but “level up;” and, forgetting how men would drag us down to the operations of dead law, we shall find everywhere the working of the living God, and all life will seem to us God’s great miracle. While we have to make a distinction between the “miraculous” and the “providential,” we may notice that
I. THE ONE IS AN EXTRAORDINARY, THE OTHER AN ORDINARY AGENCY. We know that our fellow-men, and we ourselves, have ordinary and regular methods of working, and that both we and they, under pressure of circumstances, sometimes transcend ourselves, and act with an energy, promptitude, skill, and power which quite surprises those who seem to know us most intimately. May not this suggest to us the distinction in God between the miraculous and the providential? The miraculous is the Divine working to meet sudden and unusual circumstances. Then we may see that there was no need for extraordinary intervention in St. Paul’s case, because this was no sudden calamity, breaking in upon and interfering with the Divine order; it was but a step in the regular course of providential dealings with St. Paul, and ordinary resources of providence sufficed to overcome the seeming danger.
II. THE ONE IS A TEMPORARY, THE OTHER A PERMANENT AGENCY. God’s providences have been working through all the ages, and they have sufficed to secure the safety of his servants under all kinds of perils. From the Old Testament numerous illustrations may be taken; e.g. notice how David was preserved while he was pursued by Saul; or see how events were providentially ordered for Joseph. Remarkable stories of wonderful providences are given in modern books; e.g. that of the man pursued by soldiers, who searched the house where he had found refuge, and quarreled outside the door of the room in which he was secreted, as to whether that room had been searched; the quarrel resulting in their going away and never entering it. God’s miracles have been wrought in almost every age, but they have always been temporary phenomena, special occasions of necessity, and having some unusual testimony to make. By their very nature miracles must be occasional only.
III. ONE PRODUCES A SUDDEN IMPRESSION, THE OTHER APPEALS TO THOUGHTFUL. CONSIDERATION. Miracles are wonders. They are not, indeed, wonders only; they are works; they are signs and wonders. Still, it is their chief characteristic that they arrest, arouse, surprise, excite attention. On the other hand, God’s providences need to be watched for and observed and thought about. “Whoso will observe these things, even he shall understand the loving-kindness of the Lord.” Then impress that, in life, human agencies that seem to bring about results for us, as his nephew’s intervention brought about St. Paul’s safety, must never take our interest merely for their own sake. We must ever look behind them and see that they are but working out the Divine plan and Divine will. God delivered St. Paul from peril by the aid of his nephew just as truly as if he had rescued him by the hand of an angel.R.T.
Act 23:29
Strangers’ testimonies to God’s servants.
The moral influence exerted by St. Paul on this Roman,, captain was so decided that he is compelled to send to his superior this report, whom I perceived to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.” Such a man as this captain would judge fairly matters of character or of conduct. He had no blinding and bewildering ecclesiastical prejudices which made crimes where there were none. So his testimony to the apostle is important. Indeed, it is always well for us to feel that the world and the stranger are sure to judge us, and form impressions from our character and conduct. We cannot be indifferent to their opinion. Our walk and conversation ought to do honor to our Master. Men should “take knowledge of us that we have been with Jesus.” The words used by the captain here remind us of two things.
I. THAT THE WORLD WANTS NO JUDGMENT ON MEN FOR THEIR OPINIONS. About opinions a Roman soldier could be supremely indifferent. With opinions human laws and magistracies have nothing to do. In opinions men may have the fullest liberty and toleration. Only when opinions influence conduct in a way that imperils social order, or the safety of the state, does the law or the magistrate concern himself with it. So we find that, in order to bring so-called heretics under the civil power, it has always been necessary to accuse them of rebellion against the law; the judge condemns them as anarchists, not as heretics. In these times we are beginning to learn more fully that opinion had better not be interfered with, and that every man may have full “liberty of prophesying,” of persuading men to adopt his views. And all wrong teachings are to be met by right teaching, by the moral force of argument, and not by the physical forces of the law. Though still we properly keep the liberty to matters of simple opinion; when men express their views in their conduct, we are bound to consider whether their conduct tends to preserve the public peace and the social order.
II. SECTARIAN PREJUDICE ALONE WANTS TO PUNISH MEN FOR THEIR OPINIONS. Even the sectarian Jews knew that St. Paul had done no wrong. They trumped up a charge against him of defiling the temple, but they knew well enough that it was a groundless charge. They were offended with his opinions and teachings, as opposing their own. Illustrate from the assumptions of the Papal Church, and her efforts to crush all who held other opinions than she sanctioned. Modern illustrations of the bitterness of sectarian prejudice may be mentioned. A man may, like the apostle, have the truth of God, but he must be rejected unless his message rings in exact harmony with the received opinions. Show, in conclusion, that the strangers judgment of us is the only really important one. They ask what we are in character, conduct, life, and relations; and they can best judge about the value of our opinions by those things in which the opinions find their practical expression. Let, then, those outside our circles, the strangers, judge us as Christians. Will they say of us as the Roman officer said of St. Paul, “About their opinions we know little or nothing; bat this we can say, They are good men and true”?R.T.
Act 23:1. Men and brethren, I have lived, &c. St. Paul could not intend by this to intimate, that he thought himself free from guilt while persecuting the Christians, since he so expressly declares the contrary elsewhere. See 1Ti 1:13. 1Co 15:9. Gal 1:13. He was only examined with respect to his conduct as a Christian; and therefore it would not have been pertinent here to refer to his conduct, while a persecuting Jew; though it was indeed true, that he did not then act against his conscience, how criminal soever he was in suffering it to continue misinformed. The plain sense of the passage is, “That his conscience, when examined as in the sight of God, with respect to what they alleged against him, did not charge him with any known and deliberate contradictions to its dictates:” and so it was, in effect, a solemn and very pertinent appeal to the Searcher of all hearts, that he had not devoted himself to the service of the gospel, in which he was now engaged, from any mean and dishonourable principle, but was fully convinced of the truth of it, and therefore was prepared to abide all extremities in its defence. Well might there be, in such a case, a folly of joy arising in an upright heart, from a consciousness through grace of its own integrity, amid such violent calumnies as were now advanced against him.
Act 23:1-2 . Paul, with the free and firm look ( .) in which his good conscience is reflected, commences an address in his own defence to the Sanhedrim, and that in such a way as without any special testimony of respect (comp. Act 4:8 , Act 12:2 ) for the sacred court, and with perfect freedom of apostolic self-reliance (which is recognisable in the simple ) to appeal first of all to the pure self-consciousness of his working as consecrated to God. The proud and brutal (Joseph. Antt . xx. 8 f.) high priest sees in this nothing but insolent presumption, and makes him be stopped by a blow on the mouth from the continuance of such discourse.
. .] with every good conscience , so that in every case I had a good conscience, i.e . agreeing with the divine will (1Ti 1:5 ; 1Ti 1:19 ; 1Pe 3:16 ). Comp. on Act 20:19 .
In the at the commencement is implied a moral self-consciousness of rectitude.
] I have administered (and still administer, perfect) mine office for God , in the service of God (Rom 1:9 ); dative of destination. He thus designates his apostolic office in its relation to the divine polity of the church; see on Phi 1:27 .
] Act 23:4 proves that this (see Krebs, Obss. Flav . p. 244 ff.) was the high priest actually discharging the duties of the office at the time. He was the son of Nebedaeus (Joseph. Antt . xx. 5. 2), the successor of Joseph the son of Camydus ( Antt . xx. 1. 3, 5. 2), and the predecessor of Ishmael the son of Phabi ( Antt . xx. 8. 8, 11). He had been sent to Rome by Quadratus, the predecessor of Felix, to answer for himself before the Emperor Claudius ( Antt . xx. 6. 2, Bell . ii. 12. 6); he must not, however, have thereby lost his office, but must have continued in it after his return. See Anger, de temp. rat . p. 92 ff. As Act 23:4 permits for . only the strict signification of the high priest performing the duties , and not that of one of the plurality of , [142] and as the deposition of Ananias is a mere supposition, the opinion defended since the time of Lightfoot, p. 119 (comp. ad Joh . p. 1077), by several more recent expositors (particularly Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, Hemsen), is to be rejected, namely, that Ananias, deposed from the time of his suit at Rome, had at this time only temporarily administered (usurped) the office during an interregnum which took place between his successor Jonathan and the latter’s successor Ishmael. Against this view it is specially to be borne in mind, that the successor of Ananias was Ishmael , and not Jonathan (who had been at an earlier period high priest, Joseph. Antt . xviii. 4. 3, 5. 3); for in the alleged probative passages ( Antt . xx. 8. 5, Bell . ii. 13. 3), where the murder of the Jonathan is recorded, this . is to be taken in the well-known wider titular sense. Lastly, Basnage (ad an. 56, 24) quite arbitrarily holds that at this time Ishmael was already high priest, but was absent from the hastily (?) assembled Sanhedrim, and therefore was represented by the highly respected ( Antt . xx. 9. 2) Ananias.
. ] to those who (as officers in attendance on the court) stood beside him , Luk 19:24 .
. .] to smite him on the mouth . Comp. as to the placed first, on Joh 9:15 ; Joh 11:32 , al .
[142] In opposition to van Hengel in the Godgel. Bijdrag . 1862, p. 1001 ff., and Trip, p. 251 ff.
C.PAUL IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL; HE MAKES HIS DEFENCE; THE COMFORTING PROMISE WHICH THE LORD GIVES HIM
Act 22:30 Act 23:11
[Act 22:30]. On the morrow, because he would have known [But on the following day, wishing to know] the certainty wherefore [of that of which] he was accused of [by] the Jews, he loosed him from his bands [he released him15], and commanded the chief priests and all their [the] council to appear [assemble], and brought Paul down, and set him before them.
[Act 23:1.] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until [I have walked before God with all good conscience unto] this day. 2And [But] the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3Then said Paul unto him, God shall [will, ] smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou [wall: thou sittest] to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law [me, in violation of the law, to be Smitten]? 4And [But] they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? 5Then said Paul [And () Paul said], I wist [knew] not, brethren, that he was [is, ] the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. 6But when Paul perceived [But as Paul knew] that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee [a son of Pharisees1]: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question [for the sake of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged!]. 7And [But] when he had so said [said this, ], there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, [and] neither2 angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess 9 both. 9And [But] there arose a great cry: and the scribes3 that were of the Pharisees part [cry: and scribes4 of the party of the Pharisees] arose, and strove [contended], saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God [man: but if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?4]. 10And when [But as] there arose a great dissension, the chief captain [the tribune], fearing lest Paul should have been [might be] pulled in pieces of [by] them, commanded the soldiers to go [that the soldiers should come] down, and to take him by force [and snatch him] from among them, and to [om. to] bring him into the castle [barracks]. 11And [But in] the night following the Lord stood by [came to] him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul [om. Paul]:5for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 22:30. On the morrow., i.e., that which is certain or sure; Lysias wished to obtain information on which he could rely; the words: , are in apposition with the former [referring epexegetically to . (Meyer).Tr.]. Lysias did not investigate the facts themselves, but wished to ascertain the precise charge which the Jews brought, against Paul. He had hitherto learned nothing that was definite; he had only perceived that the Jews were excessively excited, and spoke of Paul with the utmost exasperation. The hierarchical authority of the Jews could, as he hoped, enable him to accomplish his design. His command that a meeting of the Sanhedrin should be held, demonstrates that the independence of the Jews, even in matters referring to the internal concerns of their religion, had been seriously impaired. The word implies that the members assembled in the ordinary council-room, whereas the reading , which is not well attested [note 1, appended to the textTr.], assumes that they were required to meet at the abode of the Roman. Besides, (with which compare , Act 23:10), indicates a locality in the city itself, and not one in the interior of the tower of Antonia, which commanded the city. From the word it appears that, although Lysias had at first felt some alarm, because he had illegally fettered a Roman citizen, he had, nevertheless, not freed Paul from his bonds, until he presented him to the Sanhedrin. [Although he had been alarmed, he determined, in a spirit of defiance, to exhibit no signs of weakness to the Jews, by the immediate release of the prisoner., i.e., brought him down from the tower to the council-room of the Sanhedrin.(Meyer).Tr.].
Act 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.The apostle was now placed before the Sanhedrin, like the Redeemer himself, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, and like the first apostles, Act 4:7 ff; Act 5:27 ff. , i.e., he steadfastly surveyed the assembly before him, with a calm and undaunted spirit. The address, . , without (as in Act 22:1), demonstrates that he felt himself to be the equal of the persons before him. He commences the proceedings himself, for he had not been cited by the assembly, but had been placed before them by the Roman commandant. Hence they waited until the latter made his own statement; the apostle, on his part, speaks with great composure. He testifies that he had a good conscience, inasmuch as he had always fulfilled his duty to God in every respect; , in every respect, in every case, with a good conscience. (which is equivalent to rempublicam gero, fungor magistratu in repub.) here implies: I have performed my office with a good conscience ; the latter is dativus commodi, namely, for God. [I have lived unto God, i. e., for his service and glory; See Rom 14:8; Gal 2:19. (Hackett).Tr.]. The usus loquendi furnishes no authority whatever for taking in an entirely abstract sense, as if it were equivalent to vitam instituere, or, se gerere.
Act 23:2-3. a. The high priest Ananias.He is also mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 5. 2; 6. 2 f.). He was the son of Nebedus, and was appointed high priest by Herod, the king of Chalcis, in the year A. D. Acts 48: he probably retained his high office till towards the year 60, when Ismael, the son of Phabi, was made the high priest, shortly before the departure of the procurator Felix (Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 8).Ananias was sent to Rome, in the year A. D. 52, by Quadratus, the governor of Syria, in order to defend himself before the emperor Claudius, in reference to certain acts of violence of which the Samaritans accused the Jews (Jos. Ant. xx. 6. 2). This circumstance led interpreters, at an earlier period, to believe that Ananias had, on that occasion, been deposed, and that, when Paul appeared before him, he was only temporarily administering the office, or, possibly, merely retained the honorary title of an ex-high priest (Eichhorn; Kuinoel). But Ananias pleaded his cause with entire success when he was in Rome, and then returned to Jerusalem, where he was, no doubt, allowed to retain his office without interruption. This is the opinion, among other recent writers, of Winer (Realwrt.), Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalters, 1848, p. 76 f. note), Meyer (Com.), and Ewald (Ap. Zeitalter, p. 500). Thus, other historical records establish the fact that Ananias was at that time unquestionably the ruling high priesta fact indicated by the designation , Act 23:2; Act 23:4.
b. Commanded them that stood by him, etc.[ . , those who stood at his (the high priests) sideservants, or officers of the court; comp. Luk 19:24. (Meyer).Tr.]. Scarcely had Paul uttered the first words, when the high priest, to whom they seemed to betray audacity or hypocrisy, commanded those who stood by (probably officers of justice), to smite him on the mouth. But Paul replied to him with righteous indignation, and announced a divine retribution for that blow. [Observe the position, (at the beginning of the reply) of the word , which, in a higher sense, returns to the high priest the blow that had just been received. It is an arbitrary assumption (Baumg.), that the command of the high priest was not executed. (Meyer).Tr.]. The words , do not constitute an imprecation, as Kuinoel supposes. [Shall smite, literally, is (or is about) to smite, the first verb denoting simple futurity the idea of a (human) curse or imprecation is at variance with the very form of the original. (Alex.).Tr.]. The expression exposes the hypocrisy of Ananias; it contrasts the external splendor of the paint or lime on the surface of the wall with the interior parts, which consist of filthy clay. [A whited wall is a familiar figure for a fair outside, behind which, or within which, all is foul and filthy. Our Saviour uses the still stronger image of a whited sepulchre, Mat 23:27. (Alex.).Tr.]. Great prominence is given to the inconsistency of the high priest, who professes to judge according to the rule of the Mosaic law, and yet personally violates it, by illegally subjecting Paul to ill treatment. , i.e., Thou too, as well as the rest, whereas, thou, as a judge, art specially bound to observe the law with strictness and conscientiousness. [, for (Winer 14. 4).Tr.]That prophetical announcement was fulfilled ten years afterwards, when Ananias, as one of the leaders of the loyal imperial party, was murdered, at the beginning of the Jewish war, by the insurgents [the sicarii]; Jos. Jewish War, ii. 17. 9.
Act 23:4-5. Revilest thou, etc.?To the charge that when Paul addressed such abusive language to the high priest of God, he offered an insult to the holy God himself, he replied, (for the purpose of justifying his course,) that he knew not that the person so addressed was the high priest. This answer has received various artificial interpretations, and its meaning has often been distorted. In some of these cases, the words that he is the high priest ( .), in others I knew not ( ), have served as the basis of the explanation. The former have, by a forced interpretation, been represented as meaning that the apostle denied that Ananias was really the high priest, either because he had procured the office by money (Grotius), or because he really was not at that time the true high priest (Lightfoot). The meaning of the other words, in which Paul speaks of his want of knowledge of the fact, has also been perverted by commentators, as if Paul intended to say: I did not reflect that he is the high priest (Wetstein, Olshausen, Ewald). According to this view, Paul really retracts his words, as having been too hastily uttered, or, he means by : I do not admit that it is so (Augustine), or I could not knowcould not think that he is the high priest, since he has acted in a manner so unpriestly, and so entirely unworthy of a high priest (Calvin, Meyer, Baumgarten). [Calvin says: Ego Augustino subscribens non dubito quin hc ironica sit excusatio, etc.Tr.]. The cause which has led to these far-fetched explanations, was the apparent impossibility of believing that the words, if taken in their plain and direct sense, conveyed the truth, namely, that the apostle actually did not know that he who had given that unbecoming command, was in truth the high priest in office. There have, however, been interpreters, who adhere to the literal sense of the wordsfor instance, Chrysostom; Beza. They appeal to the fact that the apostle had long been absent from Jerusalem, and hence could not personally know the high priest. If Ananias had been invested with the office at the time when Paul proceeded with the letters of the high priest (Act 9:1-2) to Damascus, in order to persecute the Christians, it would be inconceivable that Paul should not now know the same man. But it has already been fully demonstrated that Ananias did not obtain the office until the year 48, whereas the latest date that can possibly be fixed as that of Pauls conversion, is the year 40 or 41. [See Exeg. note on Act 9:2.Tr.]. Besides, the high priest could not be recognized by his apparel, when he was not engaged in performing his official duties in the temple. It is also quite possible that Ananias was not, at that moment, the presiding officer of the meeting, for the whole occurred, not at a regular session of the Sanhedrin, but at one which had been unexpectedly appointed by the Roman tribune. Or, if Ananias even did act as the presiding officer, Paul could not know from that circumstance that he was also the high priest, for the latter was not always or necessarily the nasi (president of the Sanhedrin). [It should be remembered that the intricacy and confusion on these pointsthe many High Priests who had been successively put up and down by Roman intervention, etc.is not necessarily the fault of the historian, but arises from the actual irregularities existing at this crisis of the Jewish history, etc. (Alex.).Tr.].Paul refers, in this connection, to a commandment of God (Exo 22:28 [quoted verbatim from the LXX. Exo 22:27.Tr.]), as one which he well knew and also reveredbut without retracting his words [The quotationis simply tantamount to saying, I know the law that you refer to, but I am not guilty of its violation. (Alex.).Tr.]
Act 23:6. I am a Pharisee.At this point the apostle quickly changes the course which he had hitherto pursued; a calm defence, such as he had begun in Act 23:1, found no favorable hearing. [He had seen enough to be convinced that there was no prospect before this tribunal of a fair inquiry and a just decision. (Conyb. and H. II. 270).Tr.]. The method which he now adopted in defending himself, and by which at least one party in the assembly before him might be won for his causethe cause of Christian truthwas that of openly declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and that his faith was allied to the Pharisaic doctrine. [Pauls declaration that he was still a Pharisee, is as little untrue, as it was when he made it in Php 3:5. He describes himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other religious society than that of the Pharisees, and who, especially with regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, adhered to the creed of the Pharisees (in opposition to the whole system of Sadduceeism), after its truth had been so fully established in the Person of Christ Himself. His opposition to the doctrine of righteousness by the law, to the hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his anti-Pharisaic labors, did not refer to the sect per se, but to its moral and other errors. As a Jew, he continued to be a Pharisee, and, as such, was an orthodox Jew, in opposition to the Naturalism of the Sadducees. (Meyer).Tr.].When he calls himself a son of Pharisees, he refers to his father and ancestors, and implies that he was not the first of his family who adopted Pharisaic views and sentiments, but had already received them by inheritance. [A son of Pharisees, see note 2, appended to the text.Tr.]. He adds, that he was in reality placed before the tribunal for the sake of the hope and resurrection. The words , are commonly explained as an hendiadys, equivalent to hope of the resurrection; this is the opinion of Bengel, Meyer, Baumgarten. But a better and more complete sense may be obtained by taking each of the terms separately, thus: for the sake of the hope, that is, the hope of redemptionof the Messianic promise given to Israel, and for the sake of a resurrection of the dead. The latter words may then be directly referred to the resurrection of Jesus, whereas, if they are inseparably connected with , the future resurrection only can have been meant; and yet the resurrection of Jesus was, no doubt, the subject which primarily presented itself to the mind of the apostle.
Act 23:7-9. And when he had so said.The multitude [the whole mass or body of the Sanhedrin itself, as distinguished from the parties into which it was divided (Alex.).Tr.] had previously united in assailing Paul; but it was now divided (), so that the Pharisees and the Sadducees contended with each other. The contention grew louder and more violent ( , Act 23:9; , Act 23:10), insomuch that the Roman tribune, who was alarmed by the danger which threatened his prisoner, ordered the soldiers to conduct the latter away. Here Luke explains the difference between the doctrinal views of the Pharisees and those of the Sadducees, for the purpose of enabling his readers to comprehend the cause of the difficulty which had arisen between men, who had previously acted in concert. The latter denied, on the one hand, the resurrection, and, on the other, the existence of an angel or spirit. (The reading should be retained, for critical reasons. [But see note 3, appended to the text, above.Tr.]. The former, , introduces a second class of conceptions, generically different from the preceding (); the latter, , connects with it objects that are similar, in so far as , an incorporeal spirit, and are, essentially, homogeneous). The Pharisees, on the contrary, confess both. (, i.e., in so far as the resurrection of the body, on the one hand, and the existence of a pure spirit, e. g., angels or departed souls, on the other, constitute two distinct categories). [On in this passage, see Winer: Gram. N. T. 55. 6.Alford, who differs from Lechler, says: The former has been altered to to suit , because with . . . three things are mentioned;whereas, if is read, the two last are coupled, and form only one. But . is used of both things, the one being the resurrection, the other, the doctrine of spiritual existences; the two specified classes of the latter being combined generically.On the doctrines of the two sects, see Jos. Ant. xvii. 1. 4. Bel. Jud. ii. 8. 14.Tr.]. Indeed, several scribes [see note 4, appended to the text, above.Tr.] of the Pharisaic party, espoused the cause of Paul. This party consisted both of learned, and of unlearned men; the former were the speakers. They spoke of Paul, personally, in favorable terms, as a man who could not be charged with any offence, and, moreover, expressed the opinion that it was quite possible that he had received a revelation. The sentence: – – , terminates abruptly, [ being cancelled by recent editors; see note 5 appended to the text, above.Tr.]; it either states, affirmatively, the condition, without adding the apodosis, or it is a question, the reply to which the opponents are expected to furnish. [The question is an aposiopesis (comp. Joh 6:62; Rom 9:22,) implying, but not expressly saying, that if such are the facts, they are very serious. (Meyer).Undoubtedly, a designed aposiopesis. A significant gesture or look towards the Sadducees expressed what was left unsaid. (Hackett). Winer (Gram. 64 II.) does not decide whether the words were pronounced affirmatively or interrogatively, and adds that it is doubtful whether an aposiopesis is here to be assumed, or whether the sentence was simply left unfinished on account of a sudden interruption, comp. Act 23:10.The sentence was left incomplete or unheard in the uproar. (Conyb. and H. II. 271). In all these cases the words . are assumed to be a later addition.Tr.]. There can be no doubt that the words: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, refer to Pauls statement in Act 22:6 ff. respecting the appearance of Jesus, except that the Pharisees conceived of the appearance of an angel, or the manifestation of a spirit, in their own way.
Act 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension.The excitement continued to increase, until at length the tribune became apprehensive that Paul would be pulled in pieces by the parties ( implies that while some took hold of him in order to protect him, others seized him in wrath, and thus he was dragged to and fro.). Hence he ordered that the military force which he commanded () should descend from the tower, secure the person of the prisoner, employing even violent measures, if the assembly resisted, and re-conduct him to the barracks. The commander, who did not desire to wound the feelings of the hierarchy, had, doubtless, directed the soldiery to remain in the tower, and had come to the meeting attended only by an orderly officer.
Act 23:11. And the night following.The revelation of Jesus Christ was probably made through the medium of a vision in a dream. Paul saw the Lord standing by him, and heard his cheering words of promise. , i.e., he was directed to go to both cities, and address his testimony to () boththe one being the religious, the other, the political capital of the world, at that time.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. When the apostle declares that he has a good conscience, he does not so much refer personally to himself as an individual, as rather to his calling as an apostle of the Gentiles. He was bound more solemnly than ever, when he stood in the presence of the highest court of the hierarchy of Israel, not to be ashamed of his office; and he did, openly and gladly, acknowledge it. He appealed to God ( )to that divine grace and that divine approbation, which were decisive, even though men should sternly condemn his conduct. He had, no doubt, chiefly those years of his life in view, which followed his conversion; still, his testimony does not refer exclusively to that period; he says in substance that, as a Christian, he served God as sincerely and zealously, as at any previous period.
2. The distinction between the office and the person who is invested with it, was placed by Paul in a very clear light, both when he so quickly addressed Ananias, on being subjected to such ill treatment, Act 23:3, and when he justified the words which he had uttered, Act 23:5. The office required the president and every member of the court to observe the law with the strictest conscientiousness; but here the person, the office-bearer, most grossly violated the law, Act 23:3. His personal act unquestionably justified any one who refused to recognize him as the holder of such a sacred office. This is the decision of the Holy Ghost, who applies the standard of right and truth to the person, however exalted his position may be, and recognizes no man as infallible, whether found in cathedra, or in the midst of a general church council.
3. The declaration of the apostle, Act 23:6, that he was a Pharisee, is frequently represented as having been dictated by worldly wisdom, as it enabled him to divide the assembly, and to derive personal advantage from party interests. Divide et impera. But it was assuredly not his object to secure himself and his personal interests; he was influenced solely by a regard for the sacred cause of the truth, and for the honor of Christ. He availed himself Of the party distinctions existing between the Pharisees and Sadducees, simply as the means of obtaining a hearing for the truth, to which the minds of all had hitherto been entirely closed. And he gained this object by declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and was brought before the tribunal on account of a doctrine which constituted the centre of gravity in the Pharisaic system. He pursues here the same course which he adopted when he combated paganism [see the authors Exeg. notes, and Doct. views, Act 17:16-34.Tr.]; he selects those principles which are allied to ChristianityIsraels hope of a Messiah, and faith in the resurrection of the dead. The result, indeed, shows that the Pharisees approached more nearly to the truth, than their opponents.
4. How far was Paul justified in saying that he had not merely been, but that he still was, a Pharisee? It has been supposed by some that his language involved an untruth. But when we reflect on the relation in which he stood to the whole system of the Sadducees (and it is precisely in view of their adverse positions that he speaks), it is evident that he could, with entire truth, assert that he had not changed, that he still was a Pharisee, that he held strict views of that holiness and righteousness which availed before God, and that, as to the hope of Israel and the resurrection, he was a firm believer; indeed, the richest blessing which existence could afford him, was the fulfilment of that earnest hope which the devout Pharisee entertained. And with respect to the points in which he differed from the Pharisees, he says to them, as he had once said to the pagan Athenians: That which ye seek, but do not understand, I have; I know it; I declare it unto you. In this sense the remark may be appropriately repeated, which Bengel makes in another connection, on Act 23:1 : [In pristino statu, quanquam in errore versabatur, conscienti fuerat obsecutus, neque quicquam commiserat, cur in foro externo reus fieret.] Nunc, quum bona vetera non abjecit, sed meliora accepit, ex prsenti statu lux in pristinum sese refundebat.
5. The revelation of Christ, Act 23:11, alike comforted and strengthened Paul. Even while he is involved in very great danger, a most brilliant prospect is opened before him. It had long ago appeared to him to be the highest object of life, to be permitted to preach the Gospel in Rome, Act 19:21; and that permission was now granted.All the purposes of the Redeemer in reference to him, as revealed at the period of his conversion, through Ananias, were rapidly approaching their fulfilment, although under the sign of the cross, seeing that he would be required to suffer much for the sake of the name of Jesus (Act 9:15-16).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.Such a glance Solomon had already cast on places of judgment, where ungodly men and wickedness prevail, Ecc 3:16; and such expressive glances are mentioned in the history of the life of our blessed Saviour, Luk 20:17; Mar 3:5; Mar 11:11. Pauls heart was, no doubt, deeply affected as he surveyed the scene before him; he thought of the fall of his brethren according to the flesh, whose Great Council was governed by such principles; he thought, too, on his own election and calling, by which he had been delivered from the bonds of darkness, and in consequence of which he would never again be obliged to apply for letters and a commission (Act 9:3) to such a council. (Rieger).I have lived [walked] in all good conscience before God until this day.Those who are rebuked by their own conscience, do not usually lift up their eyes, as Paul here does, but cast them down. (Starke).A good conscience before God, proceeds, I. From true faith in Christ, by which the remission of sins is obtained; II. From the assurance of divine grace and eternal life; III. From the renewal of the Holy Ghost, unto a new life and walk; IV. From the faithful performance of the duties of our calling, (id.).It is true that many appeal to their good conscience, because no man can actually look into it; many, too, mistake a sleeping for a good conscience. (id.).
Act 23:2. To smite him on the mouth.In this mode of suffering, too, Paul was an image of the suffering Jesus, who, in the days of his sorrow, was smitten on the cheek because he witnessed a good confession (1Ti 6:13) before the high priest (Joh 18:22). (Ap. Past.).How many shameful blows on the face devout believers still receive, partly, by beingreviled, partly, by not being allowed to speak the truth, and to rebuke the wicked ways of the world! Job 16:10; 1Ki 22:24; Act 5:28. (Starke).
Act 23:3. God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.Here was one of those whited sepulchres mentioned by the Lord Himself, Mat 23:27.We have here a striking instance of an unconverted teacher. Ananias held the sacred office of high priest, and, perhaps, when viewed externally, his gray hair and white priestly garments, gave him even a venerable appearance; but internally, his heart was full of rage and deadly hatred, of injustice and tyranny. Our sacred offices, ecclesiastical titles, and priestly dignities, are nothing else than a white lime which conceals the internal uncleanness of the carnal heart. But no attempt at concealment is of avail before God, and even in the presence of men the loose lime sometimes fails to adhere. (Ap. Past.).No doubt when Pauls conduct is compared with the calmness, gentleness, and self-denial of Jesus (Joh 18:23), his warmth of temper becomes evident. Still, we ought not to be too rigid in forming a judgment respecting the apostle. It is true that in our excessively refined age, the servants of Christ cannot commit a greater sin than when they exhibit impetuosity; the remark is at once made that they should have been more circumspect. This may be true; but then, let it be considered that they have exposed themselves to every danger, and, weak as they are, chose their position at the front of the army. It is surely better to be unskilful advocates of the Lord, than, through excessive caution, to resign the whole work to others. It may be also remarked, that if Luther, for instance, had been in Pauls place, he would have spoken with far more severity. (Williger).
Act 23:5. I wist not that he was the high priest.It ought to be observed that it was quite possible that, amid the tumult, Paul should not have known or recognized the person of the high priest; for, at that time, the office had been exposed to such vicissitudes, that it could not always be known who was really invested with it. Hence Paul might have regarded. Ananias as a Jewish elder and judge, without actually knowing that he was at that time the presiding high priest. However, even if it should be assumed that Paul did know him, his words could not have been intended to imply more than that, while he revered the office, he rebuked the person who so unworthily administered it. (Ap. Past.).It would, however, be an abuse to quote the conduct of Paul for the purpose of justifying violent human passions, or the maxims of a false political wisdom, Tit 1:7. (Starke).If St. Paul in this manner assails the priest, who was appointed by the law of Moses, why should I hesitate to assail these painted bishops and masks that come from the pope, without any authority derived from God or from men? (Luther).
Act 23:6. I am a Pharisee, etc.Here Paul stands as a sheep in the midst of wolves; he is, therefore, wise as a serpent, Mat 10:16. (Starke).And yet, he did not renounce the harmlessness of the dove. He still belonged to the Pharisees, not only on account of his education and earlier life, but also on account of his present position as a believer, in so far as, in contradistinction from the frivolity of the Sadducees, he maintained, with the Pharisees, the authority of the divine law, and believed in the resurrection. This was the common ground occupied by them and by him, and he desired to guide them still further, until he had conducted them to the Gospel.The hope of the fathers, fulfilled by the appearance of Christ; and, the resurrection of the dead, sealed by the resurrection of Christthe two fundamental themes of the preaching of Paul. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:7. And the multitude was divided.Here again we see the wisdom of God, in patiently permitting so many forms of religion to exist. If the whole world were of one mind, the truth would soon be crushed. But now, while one sect contends with another, divine truth finds an opportunity to speak. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:9. We find no evil in this man.Human passions were violently inflamed; nevertheless the wisdom of God accomplished its great design. He rules in the midst of his enemies [Psa 110:2.]. Somesays Paul (Php 1:16; Php 1:18),preach Christ, who are influenced by hostile feelings; still, if Christ is preached, whatever the motive may be, I will rejoice. (Ap. Past.).
Act 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing, etc.When the people of God are in great distress, He can always send them guardian angels, even though these should be heathen soldiers. (Starke).It may easily be conceived how great a stumbling-block this division was to the heathen officer. (Rieger).And still, in our day, when Christians, in their religious disputes, pull one another in pieces, their conduct must give offence to heathens.
Act 23:11. And the night following, the Lord stood by him.The danger was great, but the comfort, too, was great. (Starke).The consolatory words of the Lord, must, on this occasion, have been of special value to the apostle. He may, himself, have felt but little satisfied with the witness which he had borne in Jerusalem, partly, on account of the result, and partly, on account of the manner of his defence. Such thoughts and doubts, to which, more than to any other cause, the sleepless nights of a servant of God are due, were dispelled by the words of the Lord: Be of good cheer; I am satisfied with thy testimony; thou hast done what thou couldst do; the result did not depend on thee; thou hast not interfered with my ways and purposes; thy witness in Jerusalem is at an end; now go to Rome. (Williger).The rest of the book, after Acts 23., is occupied with the apostolical testimony which Paul bore in Rome. Now if the defenders of the primacy of Peter could have found all these statements, or even only the half of them, made in reference to Peter, what a great stress they would lay on the circumstance! (Bengel).
On the whole section, Act 23:1-11.
The enemies of the Gospel, condemning themselves: I. By the injustice of which they are guilty, Act 23:2 ff.; II. By their internal disputes, Act 23:6 ff. (Lisco).
The hope of the resurrection, the crown of Christianity: I. The force of Pauls defence depends on the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection; II. That doctrine is sustained by the sure foundation of divine truth. (id.).
The excited feeling which Paul displayed before the council: I. The cause, Act 23:1-2; II. The manner in which he controlled it, Act 23:3-5. (id.).
The true mode of combining the simplicity of the children of God with the wisdom of the children of this world: I. The simplicity of the children of God, by a candid confession of our infirmities, Act 23:3-5; II. The wisdom of the children of this world, by availing ourselves of those circumstances by which our object may be gained, Act 23:6-10. (id.).
The comfort of a good conscience, Act 23:1; I. The source from which it proceeds; (a) justification by faith; (b) earnestness in following holiness [Heb 12:14]; II. The support which it affords: (a) it enables us to labor with diligence; (b) it enables us to suffer with hope and joy.
Pauls defence before the council, or, The true spirit of a witness: a spirit, I. Of manly courage, Act 23:1-3; II. Of childlike humility, Act 23:4-5; III. Of calmness and prudence, Act 23:6; and, at the same time, IV. Of candor and simplicity, Act 23:6, (for Paul speaks nothing but the truth).
Even when a servant of God exhibits nothing but carnal zeal, he shows what manner of spirit he is of [Luk 9:55]: I. By the cause which provokes his zeal (it is iniquity that arouses him, and justice and truth for which he is zealous). II. By the manner in which that zeal manifests itself (even in anger, he forgets neither his own dignity, nor his reverence for God). III. By the victory which he gains over it (he confesses it, when his composure is restored, and firmly controls it.Parallel cases in Luthers life and writings).
Jesus and Paul before the Great Council, or, The Master and the disciple before unjust Judges: I. The points of resemblance between them; (a) both are undeservedly exposed to shame, (Act 23:2, and comp. Joh 18:22); (b) both maintain the dignity which heaven had bestowed (Act 23:3, and Joh 18:23). II. The points in which the Master is above the disciple; (a) the holy self-consciousness of Jesus (Joh 18:20-21), is more than Pauls good conscience (Act 23:1); (b) the gentle reply of Jesus (Joh 18:23), is more heavenly than Pauls human vehemence (Act 23:3).
The best advocates of a servant of God before the tribunal of an unjust world: I. The comfort of a good conscience in his own breast, Act 23:1; II. The curse of a bad cause in the ranks of his enemies, Act 23:3; Act 23:6-9; III. The sympathy of unprejudiced and honest men of the world, Act 23:10; IV. The gracious testimony of a righteous Judge, in heaven, Act 23:11.
The call from heaven: Be of good cheer, Paul!, a source of comfort for all the faithful servants of Christ: I. It consoles them when the world unjustly condemns. II. It indemnifies them, when their office exposes them to reproach; III. It soothes them when their own conscience is troubled; IV. It endows them with strength for future contests (Thou must bear witness also at Rome.).
[Act 23:8. Faith in the invisible world: I. The invisible world; (a) the future judgment; (b) the eternal happiness of the redeemed; (c) the eternal misery of the impenitent. II. The grounds of our faith in it; (a) reason sustains it; (b) the word of God establishes it; (c) the resurrection of Christ confirms and illustrates it. III. The influence of that faith; (a) on the mind and heart; (b) on the conscience; (c) on the outward walk. Tr.].
Footnotes:
[15]Act 22:30. (Acts 22). [D. is deficient from , Act 22:29, to the end of the book.Tr.] , after [of text. rec., with G. H.] is obviously a later addition; for the four oldest uncial manuscripts [A. B. C. E., also Cod. Sin., Vulg.] do not exhibit it.Further, the same four manuscripts [A. B. C. E., with Cod. Sin., Vulg. (convenire)] exhibit the reading , whereas the others [G. H.] have the reading [of text. rec.]. The latter is also a later correction, as it was supposed that the Jewish authorities had been directed to proceed to the quarters of the Roman commander. [See the Exeg. note.In the same verse, before ., of text. rec., with G. H., is changed into by recent editors, on the authority of A. B. C. E., Cod. Sin., Vulg. (omne)., after ., of text. rec. with G. H., is dropped by the same, on the same authority.Tr.]
[1]Ch. 23, Act 23:6. The reading, , is found in the uncial manuscripts A. B. C. [also, Cod. Sin.], in seven minuscules, the Syr. and Vulg.; also in Tert.; the reading [of text. rec., found in E. G. H.], , is, without doubt, a correction, as it was assumed that Paul referred solely to his father. Griesbach preferred the plural form; it has been very properly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. [also Born. and Alf., while Scholz retains the singular.Tr.]
[2]Act 23:8. [The text. rec. reads: , . with G. H., some minuscules and fathers; Lach., Tisch., and Alf., change , before . into , on the authority of A. B. C. E (also Cod. Sin.)., some minuscules, etc. See the Exeg. note on the passage.Tr.]
[3]Act 23:9. a. The reading of the two latest uncial manuscripts, G. H., and of five minuscules, namely, , without the article, seems to be genuine. Two uncial manuscripts [B. C (also Cod. Sin.).] read: ; in two others [A. E., and Vulg. (quidam Pharisorum)] the reading is: . All such alterations were probably intended to explain or improve the original words [which, according to Lechlers translation, he assumes to have been those found in text. rec., excepting , which occurs in none of the uncials. This is the reading preferred by Tisch.; Lach. reads simply: . Alf. makes no change in the text rec. Meyer concludes with Born. that the genuine reading is probably the following: . . .Tr.]
[4]Act 23:9. b. The concluding words: , after , [of text. rec., with C (second correction).G. H.] are wanting in the four most important manuscripts, of the first class [A. B. C (original). E., also Cod. Sin.], in three minuscules, and five of the oldest versions; they should, in accordance with the opinion of Erasmus, Griesb., and most of the recent critics, be cancelled, as being simply a gloss derived from Act 5:39.
[5]Act 23:11. after , is, according to external evidence, undoubtedly spurious. [It is found in C (second correction). G. H., but not in A. B. C (original). E., Cod. Sin., Vulg., etc.Tr.]
CONTENTS
Paul pleadeth his Cause before the Council. A Dissension takes place in consequence of it among his Accusers. He is sent to Felix.
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day. (2) And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (3) Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? (5) Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
While we cannot but admire the faithfulness, and intrepidity, of the great Apostle, in thus challenging his enemies, and contending for his integrity; we must not strain Paul’s words too far, as though he meant to say, that he had always lived without guilt upon his conscience before God. This was far from the Apostle’s meaning. All he intended to assert, indeed all he did assert, was, that his conscience could not reproach him with having done anything to expose him to their laws, or their just displeasure. It is a point well worth attending to, in our estimate of men and things, to observe, that in the Scripture account of holy men, and of their integrity, nothing more is implied, than that in life, they conduct themselves in all the departments of it, uprightly, and with a good conscience towards men. They draw a line of distinction, between the judgment of men, and the tribunal of God. Thus David calls upon the Lord to plead his cause, with unrighteous judges. judge me, (said he,) 0 Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me, Psa 7:8 . But, when David contemplated God’s tribunal, and not man’s, he cried out: Enter not into judgment with thy servant, 0 Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psa 150:6 . And thus, in like manner, other holy men of old, considered the vast difference: See Job 27:5-7 with Job 9:20-21 . So that Paul’s justifying himself in this place, is wholly with an eye to human laws, in the transactions of one man with another.
The passionate behavior of Ananias, and the hasty retort of Paul, both proved the common Adam-nature to which they both belonged. Though grace had renewed the mind of Paul, yet the unrenewed body had all the old man of sin remaining! So Paul said, and so all the children of God know, by experience, Rom 7:23 , to the end. But, though Paul spake hastily, yet there was truth in what he said: and it should seem to have been somewhat prophetical. Sinners are smitten of the Lord, when judgment overtakes them. And the unjust judge can expect no other. Reader! do not overlook the humble acknowledgment of the Apostle, of his error, by haste and inadvertency. True grace, will always induce such effects.
Act 23:21
Compare Carlyle’s sarcastic remark on Markham, in Two Hundred and Fifty Years Ago. ‘For the rest, having “vowed never to eat supper nor to take the sacrament” till he was revenged on Holler, he did not enjoy either of these consolations in this world.’
References. XXIII. 26. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 67. XXIII. 27. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. x. p. 362. XXIII. 30. Ibid. vol. viii. p. 32. XXIII. 35. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 403. XXIV. 4. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. xi. p. 287.
Chapter 85
Prayer
Almighty God, hast thou not said, “What is thy petition? and what is thy request? and it shall be granted unto thee”? We answer thy challenge of love by telling thee somewhat of our painful need. We cannot tell thee all our want, for our life is one long necessity. Thou alone canst understand the mystery of our continual void. Our heart aches for something not born of time; our soul hath a desire which space cannot satisfy. We pray without words; we look great wonders and expectations which we cannot put into speech. We are groping for something; we are in the dark and cannot tell the beginning or the end. We listen if we may hear a sound going in the wind; we look as if we might perhaps see some gentle presence in the cloud. We cannot tell what we are; we affright ourselves. The Lord come to us in his own way, and the light will come with him, and, though for one moment the glory may strike us blind, we shall afterwards feel his fingers upon our closed eyelids; then shall they be opened and we shall see clearly. In the name of Jesus Christ, thy Son, loved of God, dying for men, grant unto us to know that this is thy purpose concerning us to open our eyes that we may see thyself. May all sights lead up to thee. When we are charmed by beauty, may it be a preparation for the Origin of all that is lovely; when we pause to listen to sweet strains, may we know that one day we shall see the Chief Musician, and delight ourselves in the music of his blessing. Teach us through Jesus Christ, thy Son, that all these things round about us and above us are but so many dim symbols trying to be what they can never be. May we accept them as signs pointing towards the Great Light and the Perfect Being. We thank thee for all hints that lift themselves towards the opened heaven; we thank thee for every finger pointed upwards. We accept as from thyself every man in whose voice there is some unearthly tone. Deliver us from the custody of time and space; give us to feel that, being in Christ Jesus, his unsearchable riches are ours, every one, and that poverty of soul cannot be known by those who inherit the kingdom of heaven. Thou hast done so much for us; we did not know that the common dust could have been breathed into this immortality. We are thy miracles; we are thy proofs and epistles may we read ourselves every line, and see thy writing in all the sacred message. Thou hast built a house for us which we call home it is not little if our hearts be grateful; it is not too large if our love of God throw it into contempt. Thou hast made a business for us whereby bread comes plentifully and honestly there is so much of it that we are surprised by the quantity; it is so sweet that we are pleased by the honesty that won it. Thou hast created for us a thousand centres of delight the soil is full of wells which we never dug; the night-time glitters with lights that want to say something; and as for what we call the latter end, it is our mistake to call it by such a name, there are no ends in God; there is no death in Christ; all things are ours. We have come to praise thee, be cause in pain and in trouble thou hast healed us and comforted us, and out of sorrow thou hast brought joy. Again, by thy good hand upon up, we see the holy place. If thou hast shut us out of it for a time, truly the gates look wider than they ever looked, and there is a light in the house so pleasant, so hospitable! we never saw the like before. How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul hath a desire and a longing to enter into the house of the Lord. The accident in the family thou hast turned into a blessing; thou dost save us from the greater accidents by the little ones. We leave ourselves quite in thine hands. We would not sigh even in token of resignation; rather would we be quite breathless lest our very breathing should be a sin known to thyself alone. We put ourselves right in front of thee, not with the boldness of self-approval, but with the simple, loving trust of great sinners who have a great Saviour. Send us east or west only point the direction. Give us the message, see that it is well wrought into our hearts, and then go with us and bring us back again. Lift us above all fear. What if the marketplace be murkier and noisier than ever before? it is as a fool’s wrath, and will cry itself to peace like a great wind. What if we have not quite so much in the right hand this year as we had last? it is nothing to us; we are fools to have reckoned the sum; we ought to have lived in love. The Lord make us good warriors of his own great soldiers, strong fighting men, alway remembering that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. The Lord keep us in his own way. May we be ready for war whilst we are still praying for peace. The Lord work out the mystery of our life, until we so see it as to praise God, from whom all blessings flow, praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
Act 23:1-35
1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2. And the high-priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4. And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest?
5. Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
6. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
9. And there arose a great cry: and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
10. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.
11. And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
12. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
13. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
14. And they came to the chief priests and elders and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.
15. Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you tomorrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
16. And when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
17. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him.
18. So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee.
19. Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me?
20. And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul tomorrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly.
21. But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee.
22. So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me.
23. And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Csarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;
24. And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.
25. And he wrote a letter after this manner:
26. Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting.
27. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood chat he was a Roman.
28. And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council:
29. Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.
30. And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Farewell.
31. Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris.
32. On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle:
33. Who, when they came to Csarea, and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.
34. And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province be was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia;
35. I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall.
Incidental Characteristics
We sometimes pay compliments when we are not aware that we are paying them. We are made to pay tributes to power in the very act of appearing to despise it. Truly this man Paul disturbs and upsets everything. I do not know that he ever appeared to be socially greater than when he was sent to Csarea with “two hundred soldiers,” “and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred” so small a man, so “blear-eyed” that he could hardly see the high-priest in the council, so poor, with a back lacerated, with limbs bent with weariness. Yet now he begins to trouble governors and captains and kings; and to be made such a stir about. And they could not help it. When they laid their hands upon him he was not there; when they sent for him at night he had gone the night before; when they looked for him in the morning they found nothing in the prison but his footprints. This was a moth they could not crush. We have entered now into a new region of Apostolic history; we shall sometimes be almost amused by certain aspects of it such great courts and such a small prisoner. Yet they can do nothing with the man some little mouse always bites the net and lets the lion loose. We have been accustomed to great preaching and great missionary tours, great theological arguments; now we come into another kind of controversy. And yet there is just the same mystery about the man; he is like his Master the only quiet man in all the tumult. Had he been noisier, they could have done more with him at their own will and fancy; but that ghostly serenity was very mocking and baffling. Paul had himself once been a member of the very council which he now addressed. What changes there are in life! He who was once one of the seventy-two now stood before the council a prisoner! He looks quite as well in the dock as he ever looked on the bench; but the remembrance of his once having been on the bench gives him his first sentence “Men and brethren,” that sentence began. Think of the criminal addressing the judge as a brother! Think of the criminal, as we know him nowadays, using any kind of familiar and endearing expression towards the incarnate Justice seated upon the bench! There is a mystery even in these things. The quality of men comes out at unexpected places. Paul was never less than the chief of the Apostles; in no company was there a greater man; wherever he came he was the cynosure of all eyes.
How proud his beginning with a humble pride! “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” He means to be great. Earnest speakers reveal themselves in their first sentence; they do not dally, grope about, hesitate, but swiftly and precisely come to the key-note which is to rule their music, however sublime its variation, however daring its vocal enterprise.
But goodness always awakens wickedness. The man presiding over the council was the embodiment of every crime that could defile personal character and debase official dignity. Josephus paints his portrait, and the portrait is one mass of darkness, and no later historian has ventured to add one touch of light to the infinite density. Hearing a man claim a good conscience, he was reminded of his own evil career; and we often seek to make ourselves virtuous by punishing what we believe to be, or apparently conceive to be, the claim of any other man to a good standing and spotless reputation. “Ananias commanded them that stood by Paul to smite him on the mouth.” That is the only thing the bad man can do. He has no other shot in his locker; he can only strike, abuse, defame, and cause the innocent to suffer. It is the least power it is not power; it is the weakness of fury and the fury of weakness.
Now we see quite a new aspect of Paul. He has borne so much that we thought he would bear everything right through to the last; but there was a priestism which Paul could not bear, so he exclaimed, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall” a mass of clay chalked over; that white robe is not a white character; the linen is fine, but it clothes a ferocious nature. Nor was this mere anger. Paul has been blamed for this little ebullition by men who themselves become angry seven days a week. But I would be found amongst those who applaud the sublime indignation. It was inspired by moral emotion and conviction. The reason of this anger is given: “For sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” We are bound to defend eternal rectitude; sometimes in defending it we may only seem to be overtaken by human infirmity. It is right to be angry; it is a sin sometimes to appear to be satisfied when the heart is filled with a conviction that things are wrong. Always notice the reason of the anger, and you will find that reason to be not a merely personal one, as if personal pride had been made to suffer, but a moral one, and, therefore, a comprehensive one, and, therefore, the anger not of a man, but of the race of men. Paul speaks here not for himself only, but for every man, time through and the world over, who suffers wrongfully. The prophecy was fulfilled: the beast was slain; he was dragged out not long afterward and killed by vengeful hands.
It is curious to notice, and most instructive, how religious some people suddenly become. “They that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest?” Hypocrites, every one! Ananias rose and fell in their estimation according to circumstances, which Ananias could not control. He was high-priest when it suited them; he was a common man when it suited their purpose to treat him so. They were conventionalists; they simply accepted the spirit of office and of ceremonialism, and did not care to inquire how far it connected itself with personal holiness and expressed personal worth.
In what follows Paul has been severely condemned. Some commentators even think that now Paul has proved himself to be but a man; great and good commentators have endeavoured to throw their robes over Paul, as if to screen him from the sight of those who would be only too anxious to discover a flaw in such fine porcelain. They need not have done so from my point of view; Paul needs no defence of mine. Said he, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest.” We may read: “I did not sufficiently reflect that he was the high-priest.” Or we may read it, as I think better still, ironically: “The high-priest breaking the law! The high-priest commanding something to be done which is contrary to the law! This cannot be the high-priest! I see a crowd of men dressed in white robes, and I hear a voice, but surely this cannot be, or it ought not to be, the voice of the high-priest. When high-priests break law, law must cease to be operative, or it will cease to be respected.” Again Paul advances a moral reason for that was the great battering-ram with which he delivered his most terrific blows. “For it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” Mark the intellectual composure, the intellectual ability, and the courtliest gentlemanliness. Up to this point Paul has the best of it. They have made no impression upon him yet. They have struck him upon the mouth; they have resented his supposedly untimely rebuke, but he comes out of this fray without the smell of fire having passed upon him. Surely some one must be standing at his right hand whom we cannot see. There are mystic as well as palpable companionships in life. We also are compassed about. Hereafter Paul may say, “But the Lord stood by me.” We must wait.
In Paul’s action in the course of this trial and the subsequent proceedings, two things are clear. First, that it is lawful to break up unholy truces. What is the case? The Pharisees and the Sadducees have combined in a common cause, whereas the Pharisees and the Sadducees are themselves divided by the greatest possible differences. This we call an unholy compromise. Paul says, “I will break this up; I will divide this council and assembly; I will show that I am not the only person who has controversies with his contemporaries.” “When Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he said, Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” This suggestion was effectual. The Pharisees and the Sadducees fell upon one another, and the Pharisees said, “We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” It was a master-stroke; it was well delivered. We should not forget it in modern conflicts and impending controversies. We have in this country what is known as an Established or National Church remember that on the one hand. On the other hand, we have a great number of Christian communions known as Nonconformist Churches. They hold that religion is personal, and is between man and his Maker; that no man should be compelled to support the religion of any other man; that men should be left at perfect liberty to obey the inspiration of individual conscience and individual love, in matters purely and unchangeably spiritual and moral. The Nonconformists, therefore, would be willing to disestablish the National Church, relieve it from State patronage and control, and would follow it with warmest prayer for enlarged spiritual success. Am I going to accept the help of an infidel, an atheist, an agnostic, or a blasphemer, in carrying out this sacred purpose? No. I will not be a party to the unholy truce, because the men who would assist in this work would not only disestablish the Church, but disestablish Christianity; therefore I say, “I will not have any common object with you that has in it any religious conviction or responsibility; I decline your co-operation; we cannot pray together, and therefore we cannot work together. Not only would you tear down the Church in its political and imperial aspects, you would deface the altar, you would burn the Bible, you would take down and hew to pieces the sacred Cross.” Men vitally divided ought not to have any nominally common ends. If questions are merely political, the whole controversy will be settled accordingly; but where questions are first religious and then political, I decline to accept the co-operation of any man in such work with whom I cannot first pray. There is no Church, Established or Non-Established, holding the Deity of Christ and the infinite necessity and preciousness of the Atonement, to which I do not wish God-speed. There may be false relations, unhappy and undesirable arrangements as between some of those Churches and political facts, governments, and histories; but I for one will have nothing to do with the help of any hand which would tear the crown from my Master’s head, if he could reach it. There arc those who can accept such aid, and I am not called upon to pronounce judgment upon them.
Secondly, that it is lawful to defeat unholy conspiracies. Forty men had bound themselves together neither to eat nor drink until they had slain Paul, and those forty men were eating and drinking all the time. Never believe in the oath of a bad man; his taking it dispossesses it of all that is solemn. Bad men cannot take an oath; it is the holy word. Have no confidences with bad men. If you have overheard their plots, go and publish them. You may not receive confessions of murder and say nothing about it. Confidence is a limited term. There is an eternal confidence that overrules all momentary compacts and promises. We owe something to the individual man; we owe more to the entire race of men. There are confessions and confidences we may, and must, gladly hide away in the heart, but they have no relation to policies and courses which would unhinge society and throw down civilization. Put every possible obstacle in the way of bad men; let them feel the hook in their jaw; let them feel that they are fighting against an infinite pressure; give them to know that the scorn of every noble man and every holy woman burns against them; give them to feel that they have no right to be in decent society; whenever they lift a hand may they feel a great weight upon it; report their doings; throw an intense focalized light upon the hell they are building. “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not” Have no part or lot or memorial with them. Bring the ghostly element to bear upon bad men. Imagine the forty Jews baffled in their design and not knowing how they had been baffled! Said they, “Who knew about this? You have told!” “No; I never told,” one of their number suddenly accused might reply. “The oath has been broken by some traitor,” and nine-and-thirty voices reply to the fortieth, “No.” “Then how is this?” There is the mysterious element in life, the anonymous force, the mischief that upsets our mischief. This is always God’s purpose. The bad man lights his candle to be ready about the first hours of the morning, and when he awakes the candle is blown out and turned upside down! Says he, “Who did this?” And the midnight has no answer; the clock ticks on as if nothing had occurred; the bad man looks round and sees nought but emptiness. “How did this happen?” That is God’s plan; we do not know how things happen. The great, heavy end of government is in God’s hand. But something always does happen. How is that? We cannot tell.
Chapter 86
Prayer
Almighty God, we are thy guests today. Thou hast spread the table and sent forth thy messages of love and welcome, and we have answered them, and today we sit under thy roof, and thy banner over us is love. We would have no thought that is not becoming the house; we would be lifted up in spirit that we may praise the Lord in a fit song and worthily magnify his holy name. Thou knowest our need, and thou hast answered it in the Gospel of thy Son. Thou hast provided abundantly for us. In thy welcome there is no reserve; it is as broad as our necessity, as deep as our guilt; it is more than we can express in our poor words an infinite love. We bless thee that we have any desires towards thyself, for they do us good. Their very passage through the soul cleanses it; they lift us up, they warm us with a new fire, they open our nature towards the best influences, they set the soul towards all the light of heaven. These desires are thy miracles; these impulses are heaven-born. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. We might have turned wholly to the dust, and have sought under our feet the rest of beasts; instead of this we lift up our heads and thrust our hands out into the sky, aiming at great things as men struggling upward with noble endeavour, if, haply, we may attain the height of heaven. This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts. We would bless his name; we would ascribe praise without break or flaw to the great Three-One. Send into our hearts the Holy Ghost “Come, Holy Ghost, our hearts inspire.” Give us to feel the pentecostal glow; let us know what is meant by an unction from the Holy One. Fill our hearts until they overflow. Let thy truth be precious to us beyond rubies, beyond all things accounted precious by men. May we seek for wisdom as for silver that is hidden, and for understanding as for gold that can only be had for much labour. Thus shall our life, though little, be great, and, though short, be long, and the grave shall but begin our higher being, the dark place shall be the starting-point of our bright and immortal career. The Lord send Christmastide into our hearts. May Christ be born in us the hope of glory; may every heart be Bethlehem; may every life know the shining of the star to be swiftly succeeded by the brighter shining of the sun. Then shall our lives know jubilee; then shall our spirits break into gracious liberty; then shall we feel no shame in the fellowship of the angels, being made pure as they are through the blood of the living, dying, rising Son of God. We bless thee for all family mercies. We thank thee that the children are at home again, that the fireside is complete, that on the hearth there is no coldness by reason of absence, or break, or distress. Where there is such break we will not chide the Hand that made it; if we cannot praise, we will at least be silent with religious awe; where there is a great gap we will say, “The hand of the Lord did it, and it is well;” where there is great joy we will say, “This is the light of heaven a candle set here by the hand divine;” where there is great darkness there shall be great resignation. The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, the Lord reigneth. Let us kiss the rod, and put out our hand inquiringly and prayerfully towards him who uses it. We send our prayers and blessings after those who have gone from us for awhile. We will not account this a break-up; it is but the momentary separation that is made up for by redoubled love. Go with our friends to their homes here and there and yonder and far away, and make others glad as well as we, and throughout all the land may there be Christmas song, Christian psalm, utterance of praise and love, because he was born who cannot die, and in whose immortality we find our security of heaven. As for those who have no Christmas to whom the year is one long winter thou canst stand by them and speak to them in the night season, and in the prison thou canst cheer them with great visions, thou canst delight them with great satisfactions. They know not why they were born, nor can we tell them; we are dumb at the sight of their pain, we feel our own weakness when we touch their distress. But we neither began nor can we end the system of things in which we live the Lord reigneth. As we stand at the manger-cradle we also stand at the Cross, for they are truly one the incarnation is the atonement; the birth is the death; the death is the birth the Life is one. So, come to us as we need thee, and make the day long; command the sun to stand still till we fight up to victory our great war with every enemy of the soul; and at night, after a long, strenuous battle, may we sleep like good knights of God. Amen.
Christian Consciousness: The Basis of Christian Argument
Act 23
( Continued )
We have just looked at this incident from the purely human standpoint; let us now regard it from the Divine side. So regarding it, we must be instantly struck by the dark fact that in the most saintly lives there are moments of apparent desertion by God. Throughout these exciting events, where is the living Lord? The Apostle is brutally entreated; he is smitten on the mouth; he is thrust into prison; he is sent away as a criminal; he is tossed to and fro like a thing that has no friend. How is this? Is this the poor return for all the labour we have traced, for all the sorrow we have watched these many days? An angel in the dark heavens just now would be a sight that would confirm our faith. Some bright dazzling vision, making the great sky tremble with light, would have a happy effect upon our little souls. We feel the need of something; the reading is cold; the line wants the curve of beauty; the events need to be flushed with a new colour. Yet this is common history. We ourselves have been in exactly those spiritual circumstances. The trappings change the incidents, the outer garments but the inward fact abides as one of the unchangeable quantities in Christian consciousness and Christian education. God does stand afar off sometimes; he stood afar off in the olden time, and the Psalmist asked him why he stood there, millions of miles away, so far off as almost to cease to be in existence for all practical purpose and effect. Why does he not always stand close to the heart that has never struck but in his praise? Why does he turn his back upon the house in whose every room there is an altar built to him with most pious hands? We are Christian students, and we cannot deny the desertion. We have no wish to alter facts. There are times when we have no God; there are great empty hours in life in which the enemy might house himself with some comfort; there are whole days in which we cannot pray. There may be a year at a time almost when the Christian minister is no minister at all only a dumb suppliant, only a man groping in darkness without hope of finding anything. If he be steadfast in those gloomy hours, he may come out suddenly quite renewed in strength, quite invincible in will and immortal in hope. What is this desertion? It may only be the sleep of the soul. Physiologists tell us the heart sleeps at every extreme of its oscillation. This desertion may only be the winter time in which God is giving the life deep rest, sweet sleep, and a time of recruital and renewal. Sleep is not death the conscious absence of God is not atheism. We must learn to bear these vacancies; we cannot always be upon the mountain-top. It is part of our larger education that we should submit to these great yawning gaps, in which we have no fellowship with God that can be expressed in terms of joy. We are not Christians because we are in high moods, or in great raptures of soul, in ecstasies that outrun all speech and mock all articulate and coherent utterance. We may be silent Christians, dazed, bewildered, afflicted, deserted Christians. I am speaking now of broad effects; presently the relieving light will come meanwhile, the great challenge is to memory, and the great appeal is to the hope that is not extinguished, but only moderated in its brightness. Do not hurry over the empty hours as if they were full you lose a great deal by indecent haste. Why not take the hours that are in the hand and look at them and say, “These are empty of God as I usually understand that term; they are the trial of my life; they are the cold places in the course through which I pass; they may be open doors through which the devil may approach my soul”? We should be men enough in Christ Jesus to pass our gloomiest hours with a faith which, though it cannot sing, can even yet mutter some inarticulate prayer. Let us own that on the face of this chapter the enemy seems to have the advantage.
We are entitled to say, in the next place, that the desertion is apparent, not real; or temporary, not final. There is one verse, even in this dark chapter, that shines over all the rest like a lamp. That verse is the nth: “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul.” There are nights and nights. Tomorrow night is coming; this night is not the final darkness. Here begins what might be carried out into the strongest defence of some of the most precious truths in the theology of Christianity. This verse brings us face to face with the fact that Christian consciousness is the beginning of Christian argument. We do not understand the full range of the term consciousness as it is used in Christian speech. Consciousness is an individual term that is to say, it describes personal, inward experience and knowledge. That is not a matter to be debated outside any other man, as if it were a question of terms and figures and symbols ascertainable and expressible to the eye of the body. You cannot complete any argument either for Christianity or against it if you ignore individual consciousness. Before you can destroy Paul’s argument, you have to destroy Paul’s character. That is the unanswerable defence of spiritual Christianity. We have not spent all these months in tracing the history of Paul without being able now to see that he is a man of great mental capacity, of distinct logical faculty, of almost unexampled practical common-sense; a great demonstrator; a great leader, a great soldier, and, as such, standing on the basis of that indisputable character, he says, “The Lord stood by me.” Consider the character of the witness. You are not entitled to call such a man either false or mistaken without being able to produce evidence which will leave no doubt as to the correctness of your knowledge. The Christian argument is not a matter that can be settled upon paper. The Christian consciousness, which often has no words fit for its adequate expression, is the sanctuary in which these solemn questions, regarding the Christian evidences, must be determined. Elisha had the inner vision which saw the nearer army. Jesus Christ combined both the statements upon which we are now dwelling in one sublime utterance said he, “I am alone, yet not alone: for the Father is with me.” Of what avail is our contradiction of that statement? We must destroy the character before we can destroy the testimony. This is a good answer to all attacks upon the altar of prayer. You cannot say upon paper, or as mere logicians and question-answerers, whether prayer is answered or not; you must ask the suppliant, and he is the only witness who can be heard upon the question: “Has your prayer been answered?” When the suppliant can say “Yes,” that settles the question. The appeal is not believe me to your little scholarship, or to your little criticism; you are not addressed at all upon this subject; you are in the outer circle of things; you are not. in the court at all; you have no locus standi . Here the man the well-known man, the man with the solid character, and the sensible, penetrating mind says, “My prayers have been answered.” You could flippantly deny it; but you could as flippantly deny ten thousand assertions made by honest men. There is no argument in denial; you never can set a denial against the testimony of a Christian known to be thoroughly sound and good. We have been now so long with Paul that we have come to know somewhat about him. He has never been a weak man; he may have been, from the worldly point of view, self-careless, reckless, daring beyond what we should call the point of prudence: but a weak man never. There has been no quiver in the emphasis of his voice; there has been no uncertainty in the tone of his declarations; he, therefore, steps into the witness-box and says, “The Lord stood by me.” What is our answer? We are not asked for an answer; we are not invited to be critically clever in relation to that man’s testimony. Perhaps we have neglected this department of the Christian evidences namely: the department of Christian consciousness, inward spiritual conviction, communion and trust. We have listened to the tongue of the body, uttering with uncertain emphasis uncertain words; we have not listened to the tongue of the soul, speaking firmly, clearly, and with the penetration of personal conviction.
Here also we find, not only illustrations of the supreme argument for prayer, but illustrations also of the supreme argument for immortality. That is not a question to be determined by words and sentences, by logical fencing and by historical research; we must go by the instinctive nature as well as by the logical faculty. We cannot help to pray; we are bound to pray. As for our immortality, we know it; it is graven upon the very substratum of our life. We were immortal before we were mortal, and we are only mortal as a part of our immortality. These are contradictions in mere words, in narrow letters, but they admit of the completest reconciliation in that sacred consciousness which is the strongest defence of every Christian position.
We cannot look at this incident without seeing, in the next place, that the enemy is made to serve the cause he would destroy: “Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome” and the enemy shall pay the expenses. The enemy is always forced into servitude; he thinks he is overturning the kingdom at the very moment he is unwittingly strengthening it in all its time-relations. God maketh the wrath of man to praise him. God has many servants, as well as those who were openly anointed on the plain, or secretly ordained in the high places of the hills. God has black servants; God has messengers, errand-bearers, menial attendants of every name and kind and size. A great host is God’s; verily, he is the Lord of hosts. Everything is working for Christ, if we could only see it so; all secular progress is simply making a wider road for the chariot of Immanuel. The Christian cause had great difficulties at first there is a shorter way from Jerusalem to Rome now than there was in the days of Paul. Paul did not go from Jerusalem to Csarea at his own charges. The invention of steam was an incident in the development of Christian progress. Christians ought to keep their eyes open. The moment there is a new way of travelling invented, the first traveller should be a missionary. The instant you can find a shorter way of communicating with the distant parts of the earth, you should send a Christian message through the new medium. That is done ceremonially on some great occasions for example: when the cable is laid from Great Britain to any great country, the monarch of the one sends the first message to the monarch of the other, wishing, “God speed and God bless you, even you and your land.” That is symbolical of what ought to take place. The ships are Christ’s, and you have let other people use them first for merchandise, and the missionary has been stowed away somewhere as a thing not wholly welcome. “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” You can now travel what once took fourteen days in seven; what use is the Church making of that progress now? The Church has taken to merchandise, to ship-loading, to money-trafficking. There lies under the ocean a mysterious thread; what use is the Church making of that black thing? None. That is for politics, for stocks and shares that thing so near being not a thing, but a thought that separating line between the material and the spiritual. The Church is making no use of it; the Church is a dead carcase. I would have the Church buy up all the bad houses in London, and in the world, and make good places of them; I would have the Church advertise Gospel services in every newspaper in the kingdom; I would have the Church alive! There is no deader thing unburied, in many respects and in many places, than the professing Church of Christ. It pursues its way, will stand still for anything, hide its head on any pretence, mumble its little hymn, hasten through its perfunctory prayer, and go home to forget it all. The Church is not the heroic force of this day, saying, “I must see Rome also.” When the Church goes to see Rome, the Church goes in a tweed suit, in holiday attire, and chokes out of itself every trace and sign of its being a Church; the Church travels incog. Would God we were alive! We should buy up all the bad places, fill up all the rat holes; we should be alive, we should be mad! Yet some ministers have told me that they really dare hardly propose to publish even a small hand-bill announcing some special service. Who fails in that case? Not the man who wanted to publish the bill, but the men who prevented its publication. Let us know them, name them, blame them, point them out, and say, “These are the men that hinder the Christian cause.” We have fallen into lackadaisical tempers and moods; we are not abreast of the age. If a man should now get a drum or trumpet, or tambourine, or anything with which to beat the devil on his own ground, he is called by unfriendly names. What is our calling in Christ? Is it to fall asleep, or to be the first force in society? If you make your Christianity a respectability, you are crucifying the very Lord you profess to adore. Let me call younger men to heroic temper and force and holy courage in this matter. Never mind the charge of madness; in his own day they said that Jesus had a devil, and that he was mad; and later on they said that Paul was beside himself. If we have fallen upon the cold and monotonous days, in which our religion is but a performance, and our worship but a ceremony an hour long, we are not advancing, we are retrograding; we are not awake, we are asleep. Let me say again and again for herein would I find the very refrain of my ministry were I closing it today if Christianity is not a passion supreme in the soul, it is the greatest mistake ever perpetrated by intellectual men. All the roads are being made for Christ. See the patent spade, and patent mattock, and patent roller, and patent steam engine they say these things are being used for certain definite purposes; they know not what they say. Every turnpike is being made for Christ; every horse is being saddled for Christ; every mighty throb of steam is preparing to carry Gospel news to far-away places. Would God we had the sense of the children of this world!
XXIX
PAUL IN THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES AT JERUSALEM
AND HIS SPEECH ON THE STAIRWAY
Act 21:37-23:30 The scripture for this chapter is Acts 22-23, and the general theme for the rest of the book of Acts is, “Paul in the hands of his enemies and under the protecting care of his Lord.” The distinct forces to be considered) each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem, are as follows: (1) The believing Jews or Christians at Jerusalem; (2) the unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem, coming in from the dispersion to the feasts; (3) Lysias, the representative of the Roman military government in Jerusalem; (4) Paul’s kinsman; (5) Paul himself; (6) Paul’s Lord.
The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem forced upon Paul the observance of a custom that he didn’t consider binding, but he was willing for expediency’s sake to observe it, and thus put him in the Temple where he would be in full view of the millions of Jews gathered in Jerusalem. After putting him in that position and seeing that it was the cause of an assault upon his life by the unbelieving Jews, and of his arrest by the Romans, there is no record then or later of their coming in to testify in Paul’s behalf or bringing any influence whatever to bear to enable him to escape from the difficulty. Action moved so fast in the assault on him, and in the arrest and his being sent away from Jerusalem, that you might excuse their silence there, but when they knew he was taken to Caesarea, although some time elapsed before his trial there, and the enemies had ample notice and time to get there to testify against him, they sent no representatives.
The impression made on my mind is that they acted in an ungrateful, “scaly” sort of way. As he had come there to bring them a big collection that had taken him four years to gather together, and for their benefit, and as they had specifically endorsed his work among the Gentiles, and as they knew he was in that Temple at their instance, and also knew that the charge was false that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts, it is to me an amazing thing that they did nothing to help him.
As was shown in the former chapter, the whole unbelieving Jewish population, whether at Jerusalem or in the lands of the dispersion, was a seething, boiling pot, and feeling that the last thing that they had to hold to was this Temple and Moses, they were jealous to madness of anything that reflected upon the sanctity of that Temple or upon the customs of Moses. Of all men living they hated Paul most, because they regarded him as an apostate from the Jewish faith. They recognized him in the Temple, and couldn’t have touched him except upon one ground, and that was, that he had introduced into the sacred precincts a Gentile. The Romans did not allow the Jews generally to have jurisdiction over life and death, but out of deference to their intense jealousy to guard the sacred precincts of the Temple from intrusion, the Romans did allow them to kill any man found in those sacred precincts that was not a Jew.
That enables you to understand why they brought the accusation against him that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts. If they could do that they could kill him right there under the eyes of the Roman guard, and escape Roman prosecution. Their hate was uniform in its persistence, and multiform in its method. They manifested their intense rancor, not only by the manner in which the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth when he appeared before the Sanhedrin, but because a number of avowed assassins, forty in number, came and apprised them of what they wanted to do, viz.: to kill Paul, and asked the Sanhedrin to enter into the plot this far, that it would urge that Paul be brought before the Sanhedrin again as if to gain further information. When they agreed to that they became guilty of the whole diabolical conspiracy.
Let us consider the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem. The procurator, Felix, was at Caesarea, and hence Lysias, the chiliarch, had command of all the Roman forces in Jerusalem, and was responsible on this point, that he should keep down all tumult. So that he was in the full discharge of his duty when he witnessed a tumult right under the Tower of Antonio and sent his soldiers to disperse that crowd, and found out what was the matter. He was in the full discharge of his duty when he saw all of them holding the one whom the Jews were trying to kill, for he supposed that it must be that Egyptian who had been the cause of such a slaughter of the Jews. He was following the Roman custom when, not being able to understand what the grievance was from what the crowd was shouting all around him, he ordered Paul to be examined by torture. It was a very cruel proceeding, but the Roman law allowed him to practice it always; that is, they stretched a man out with thongs, and put him to the torture to make him tell what was the cause of the assault against him. Lysias wanted to know what it was, and he couldn’t gather from what the Jews said; so he wanted to force the person accused to state the cause. “What devilment have you been into that makes the people want to kill you?” But when Paul avowed his Roman citizenship, Lysias followed the law in instantly countermanding the order to put him to the torture. And Lysias followed the Roman custom of inquiring into a case before he judged of the case, in having Paul brought before the Sanhedrin in order that in that open court he might ascertain what the gist of the matter was. And he recognized at a glance what it was. Then when a vow was made to kill Paul, he showed himself to be able in tactics and in administrative capacity to put Paul beyond the power of assassination, by sending him to his chief, the procurator at Caesarea. No man can read the action of Lysias in this whole matter without receiving a very favorable impression of this Roman officer.
But Paul had some kinsfolk there, and as there were forty men who had conspired to assassinate Paul, and as they carried their plot to the whole Sanhedrin (such a secret as that couldn’t be kept), so Paul’s kinsfolk found out about it, and the nephew came with a warning. It isn’t said that he was a Christian. That is probable, yet it is strange that James and the elders couldn’t find out anything and couldn’t offer any service, but this boy did find out, and took a very active and noble part.
So far as Paul is concerned, he is entirely innocent. He had done nothing to justify an assault upon him in the Temple. It was an outrageous thing against the Temple for any violent man to come into it and lay hold upon a man who was carrying out the Temple regulations. And when he was rescued by the Romans, we see that he didn’t lose his self-possession. The crowd came so near killing him that the soldiers had to pick him up and rush with him in their arms to get up that stairway out of danger, but before his feet hit the ground he wanted to say something. He wasn’t going to allow his life to be disposed of, and the cause to be put in jeopardy, without doing all he could. So he says to Lysias, “May I speak to you?” addressing him in Greek. “Why, do you speak Greek?” says Lysias, “Is supposed you to be that Egyptian.” “No,” says Paul, “I am a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, no mean city.” “Well,” answers Lysias, “What do you want?” “Why, I want to speak to that mob there.” Lysias is very anxious to find out all the facts he can, and he permits it. So Paul stands there on the stairway and delivers that inimitable address that we will consider later, and as Paul spoke in Hebrew, Lysias couldn’t get any light on the subject, and when he proposes to bring Paul before the court to torture him, Paul still has his wits about him and says, “I am a Roman. You can’t torture me.” Then when Paul is brought before the council, he boldly affirms in his first sentence that from his youth up he had lived conscientiously, no matter which side he was on; that he thought he was doing God’s service when he did it.
When the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth, Paul’s anger flashed out: “God will smite thee, thou whited wall! You attempt to try me by the law, and contrary to the law command me to be smitten in the mouth?” But when somebody said, “You are reviling the high priest,” quick as a flash he turned, saying, “Brethren, I knew not that he was the high priest. I remember the law says that there should be reverence toward rulers.” He possessed quick self-control, and then when he saw there was no chance to get a verdict before that crowd, with his will as quick as lightning, recognizing Pharisees and Sadducees there, he adopted the old Latin proverb, “Divide your enemies in order to conquer them,” and instantly avows that he is under charge on account of his belief in the resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees, of course, sided with Paul on that, and the Sadducees against him, and they turned to fighting each other, and Paul escaped. It shows the most nimble wit in hazard. And then when his nephew brings him the information about the plot you see how his wisdom is running all the while. He says, “You go show these facts to Lysias.” Throughout the whole proceeding he commends himself to us in not getting scared, and in not losing his head; in seizing every opportunity for self-defense and for setting forth the cause. That is Paul’s part.
The tact of Paul’s speech on the stairway is almost infinite:
1. In that he spoke it in Hebrew. If anything in the world would appeal to that crowd it was to hear their own mother tongue. When such a great multitude of the Jews had lost the power to speak Hebrew, or even to read it, it was an instant appeal to them that this man would speak to them in the mother tongue.
2. While everything he said had been said before, yet it is the way in which he makes what he says meet that case. He applies it to this point: First, “I was once Just such a zealot as you are about your law. Your high priest knows it. You all know that I went to any length to put down Christianity. But, brethren, I met the Lord. The light in which I met him was so bright it blinded me. By the power of God I am a changed man. There has been an internal experience to justify my change from one crowd to another crowd, and the recognition of my change was by as devout a Jew as you are one Ananias and the Lord met him and sent him to authenticate what had been done. And to show that my heart is toward you as it ever has been, when I was in Jerusalem at the time of the conference here in the church I went to the Temple, and there the same Lord that converted me and that impressed Ananias to baptize me, told me to go to the Gentiles. You have nothing against me beyond my going to the Gentiles, and yet I have gone in obedience to your Messiah gone after an experience of conversion to prove to me that my former zeal against the church was wrong, and authenticated by a Jew just as zealous as you are.” It was impossible for an orator to state a case with any greater simplicity and with any more tactfulness. But when he said “Gentiles,” why that was like waving a red flag before a mad bull. Then they went to howling at once.
Here we have the expression, “Wash away thy sins.” We have already considered that in Act 2:38 , but I will restate it now, since here Paul is commanded to wash away his sins. Since he is commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, that proves that it wasn’t real cleansing from sin, but a figurative one, because God alone can remit sin, and there is no virtue in baptism to take it away. Therefore, what is meant is that Paul himself, not God, could symbolically wash away his sins in baptism. Baptism could symbolize the cleansing from sin, though it couldn’t actually remove it.
Lysias ordered Paul’s examination by torture in order to find out what the grievance of the Jews was against this man, and Paul escaped it, as I have already shown, by claiming to be a Roman citizen; and that leads to the next expedient of Lysias. As a Roman he is bound to find out in some way what the grievance is, so the next expedient is to order the Sanhedrin to come together, and he said, “You are not to mob this man. He is my prisoner, and I want to know what is against him,” and the expedient was very successful from his point of view. It demonstrated to him that there were no charges against Paul that could come under the jurisdiction of a Roman. So he won out on this expedient. He saw that they didn’t agree themselves, and that it was only a matter upon which Pharisees and Sadducees differed a matter of their own law and he never had any doubt about the case any more.
Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest,” is hard to explain. I will give what some commentators have said, viz.:
First, that Ananias had usurped the office of high priest during a vacancy, and therefore was not recognized by Paul. There is no evidence that that office was vacant.
Second, that Paul, having been long absent, was really unacquainted with the person of the high priest. That cuts no figure, because Paul would recognize the man that was wearing the full official dress of the priest, as the priest.
Third, that the words are ironical: “I couldn’t be supposed to know that you, a man that would command me to be smitten in the mouth as you did, was high priest.”
Fourth, that Paul on account of his nearsightedness, his imperfect sight, couldn’t discern that dress. That is Farrar’s explanation, and it is a very plausible one, too.
Fifth, that “I wist not, brethren,” means, “I didn’t give it a thought; I just spoke fast, and when he commanded me to be smitten in the mouth I spoke without giving a thought to the fact that the one who said it was high priest.” That is not very plausible.
Of all these explanations the most plausible one to me is Farrar’s. A near-sighted man may come right into a room and unless he comes right up close to a person he will not recognize him.
[I most heartily agree here with Canon Farrar and Dr. Carroll on their explanation of Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest. It is almost tragical that there is so little allowance made for the man who has an infirmity of vision. I have suffered for nearly thirty years with what I suppose to be the same eye trouble that so harassed and afflicted Paul. Many times I do not recognize my best friends, even when they are but a few feet away. It has been one of the greatest of all my crosses, and I am sure that in this incident Paul did not have sufficient vision with which to recognize the high priest, and that this is a full explanation of the matter. Editor.]
Before this, Paul had set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers in Rom 13:1-7 : “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shall have praise from the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”
The explanation of the three classes of Paul’s military escort is that the Roman legion was divided. The main dependence of the Roman legion was what is called the heavy-armed soldiers. They carried the shields and that deadly short sword. They carried also an immensely long lance. When they drove that lance into the ground and drew on their short swords, they turned the battle. Right ahead of them was a line of spearmen, that before they got in touch with the enemy could throw their javelins, and fall back behind the heavy part. The third part was the light troops cavalry. Every legion had those three classes of soldiers, so when Lysias sent a guard of 200 soldiers, tremendously heavily armed troops, 200 spearmen, light armed troops, and 70 cavalrymen, that made a body that could adapt itself to any kind of an enemy that would attack them on the way and it was exceedingly formidable, for Lysias recognized the power of the malice of the Jews.
A very favorable impression is made on the mind by this account. The world never saw such military discipline as the Romans had. Whenever they camped for just one night they would do work enough to build a town. They would dig a ditch and throw up a wall around their camp. They knew exactly where to put the baggage wagons. Every cavalryman knew where his place was. Every spearman knew where his place was. It was a citadel of fortifications, if they just camped one night, and over all Europe, where the Romans marched, could be seen their camps at night. Frederick the Great came near having a military discipline equal to the Romans. As to the administration of justice, we are compelled to bow before it. Take this man Lysias, or Gallic, or any other case that came up, and how careful they are! They would say, “It is not our custom to try a man until we hear him. We will hear both sides of it. We want to know the facts, and if what he is accused of doesn’t come under the Roman jurisdiction, we dismiss the case.” And the only time when there is a “slip-up” in Roman justice is where the man appointed to power, like Pilate or like that slave, Felix, to whom we will come later, has itching palms or fears, then justice goes awry. The Roman code, together with the code of Moses, is the foundation of the law that rules the civilized world today. The Romans had good roads. They had good discipline. They had fine administration of justice. A “slip-up” would come only in some special cases, as I have mentioned.
There are three styles in this section the inimitable historical prose style of Luke, the epistolary style of Lysias, and the oratorical style of Paul in making a speech. When I read it over I can feel the touch of each one of them as I come to it.
When a school boy I read the twenty-seven novels of Walter Scott, and I had read quite a number of his historical books before I came to his epistolatory ones, and I was perfectly delighted when I came to Gauntlet, a story in the form of letters written from one to another. Scott enhanced the literary excellence of his stories by changing the style.
Lysias’ letter is a genuine letter. Paul’s speech is a great speech. Luke is a true historian. There is nothing stilted. There is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias. He knows how to write: “Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor, Felix, greeting: This man was seized of the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers, and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause whereof they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accusers also, to speak against him before thee.”
So the one touch of human nature in that letter is this: “This man was taken of the Jews and would have been killed of them: Then I came with an army and rescued him.” Now, he didn’t know that Paul was a Roman when he first interfered. He found that out afterward, but as he stated it, it certainly put him in a more favorable light to make Felix think that he understood it that way that be was endeavoring to take care of the Roman people. Every man is the hero of the story he tells.
I knew a man to run into our camps on the frontier once, gasping for breath and his tongue out, telling about the Indians only two miles off, and how they had crowded him, bow he had saved his horses, and how he had come across to give information to the camp (it was all made up to scare us) and John Meriwether says, “I was a fool to believe you at first, but I was wise in believing you afterwards, because there was such a natural twang in the way you made yourself the hero, that I thought you were telling the truth.”
QUESTIONS 1. What the scripture for this chapter, and the general theme for all the remainder of Acts?
2. What distinct forces must be considered, each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem?
3. State the case from the viewpoint of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, and your judgment of their performance.
4. What is the case of the unbelieving Jews there?
5. What is the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem?
6. What is the case of Paul’s kinsman?
7. What is the case of Paul himself?
8. Analyze Paul’s speech on the stairway, and give the substance of this speech in paraphrase.
9. What the explanation and force of “wash away thy sins”?
10. Why did Lysias order Paul’s examination by torture, and how did he escape?
11. What is the next expedient of Lysias, and what the result?
12. What is the explanation of Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest”? What the remarks on this incident of the editor of this INTERPRETATION?
13. Where before had Paul set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers and what is the substance of his statement?
14. How do you explain the three classes of Paul’s military escort?
15. What impression is made on the mind by this account of Roman military discipline and administration of justice?
16 When was there injustice practiced under the Roman law, and what illustrations cited?
17 What is the literary excellence of this section?
18. What is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias? Illustrate.
1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
Ver. 1. In all good conscience ] Good, both with the goodness of integrity and of tranquillity. A recta conscientia transversum unguem non oportet quenquam in omni sua vita discedere, saith Cicero (Ep. ad Attic.). Let a man keep his conscience clear. Better offend all the world than conscience.
1. ] seems to describe that peculiar look, connected probably with infirmity of sight, with which Paul has already been described as regarding those before him: and may perhaps account for his not knowing that the person who spoke to him was the high priest, Act 23:5 . See ch. Act 13:9 , note.
The purport of Paul’s assertion seems to be this: being charged with neglecting, and teaching others to neglect the law of Moses, he at once endeavours to disarm those who thus accused him, by asserting that up to that day he had lived a true and loyal Jew , obeying, according to his conscience, the law of that divine of which he was a covenant member. Thus will have its full and proper meaning: and the words are no vain-glorious ones, but an important assertion of his innocence.
Act 23:1 . , see on chap. Act 1:10 , “looking stedfastly,” R.V. The word denotes the fixed stedfast gaze which may be fairly called a characteristic of St. Paul. On this occasion the Apostle may well have gazed stedfastly on the Council which condemned Stephen, and although many new faces met his gaze, some of his audience were probably familiar to him. There is no need to suppose that the word implied weakness of sight (Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 38). . .: the omission of suggests that he addressed the assembly not as judges but as fellow-countrymen. On . see on Act 1:15 . It is of course possible, as Chrysostom observes, that he did not wish to appear before the chiliarch. : the word occurs no less than thirty times in N.T., R.V., so also in Joh 8:9 , but 1Co 8:7 , , R.V., and of these no less than twenty times in St. Paul’s Epistles, twice in Acts, on both occasions by St. Paul, three times in 1 Peter, and five times in Hebrews. It may therefore be almost reckoned as a Pauline word. It does not occur at all in the Gospels (but cf. Joh 8:9 ), but it need hardly be said that our Lord distinctly appeals to its sanction, although the word is never uttered by Him. The N.T. writers found the word ready to their use. In Wis 17:10 (11) we have the nearest anticipation of the Christian use of the word, whilst it must not be forgotten that it first appears at least in philosophical importance amongst the Stoics. (In Ecc 10:20 it is used but in a different sense, and in Sir 42:18 , but in the latter case the reading is doubtful, and if the word is retained, it is only used in the same sense as in Ecc 10:20 .) It is used by Chrysippus of Soli, or Tarsus, in Cilicia, Diog. Laert., vii., 8, but not perhaps with any higher meaning than self-consciousness. For the alleged earlier use of the word by Bias and Periander, and the remarkable parallel expression attributed to the latter, see W. Schmidt, Das Gewissen , p. 6 (1889), and for two quotations of its use by Menander, Grimm-Thayer, sub v.; cf. also Davison, The Christian Conscience (Fernley Lectures), 1888, sec. ii. and vi.; Cremer, Wrterbuch, sub v. ; Sanday and Headlam, Rom 2:15 , and for literature “Conscience,” Hastings’ B.D. For the scriptural idea of the word cf. also Westcott, additional note, on Heb 9:9 . .: however loosely the word may have been used at a later date, it seems that when St. Paul spoke, and when he wrote to the Philippians, it embraced the public duties incumbent on men as members of a body , Hort, Ecclesia , p. 137, Lightfoot on Phi 1:27 (Act 3:20 ), cf. Jos., Vita , ii. St. Paul was a covenant member of a divine , the commonwealth of God, the laws of which he claims to have respected and observed. The word is also found in LXX, Est 8:13 (H. and R.), 2Ma 6:1 ; 2Ma 11:25 , and four times in 4 Macc. Lightfoot, u. s. , parallels the use of the verb in Phil. by St. Paul from Clem. Rom., Cor [371] , xxi. 1, and Polycarp, Phil. , v., 5. But Clem. Rom., u. s. , vi., 1, has the phrase , referring to the O.T. Saints, and so St. Peter and St. Paul. To this latter expression Deissmann, Bibelstudien , i., p. 211, finds a parallel in the fragment of a letter dating about 164 B.C. (Pap., Par. , 63, coll. 8 and 9), ( ) . : in another moment of danger at the close of his career, 2Ti 1:3 , the Apostle again appeals to a higher tribunal than that of the Sanhedrim or of Caesar. For the dative of the object cf. Rom 14:18 , Gal 2:19 . ., emphatic, because the Apostle wished to affirm that he was still in his present work for Christ a true member of the theocracy, cf. Rom 9:1 ff.
[371] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Acts Chapter 23
‘And Paul, fixing his eyes on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by him to smite his mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God is about to smite thee, whited wall. And dost thou sit judging me according to the law, and breaking the law commandest me to be smitten? And those that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? And Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people’ (vers. 1-5).
It is scarcely to be supposed that this was a regular assemblage of the Sanhedrim, it was done hurriedly to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority so to assemble the religious chiefs of the Jews. This may serve to explain what ordinarily would seem scarcely intelligible. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. Had he been in his official robes, this could scarcely be understood; especially as we are told that Paul looked steadfastly at the council. If it were an informal meeting, neither high priest nor other may have worn any distinctive raiment.
Ananias is quite distinct from Annas the high priest in the earlier days of which the Gospels treat; nor had he been so long appointed that Paul must have remembered him. He may have been a comparative stranger to the apostle, especially in his official capacity. But, what is of more importance to remark, the apostle’s testimony was that he had lived before God in all good conscience unto this day: not a word about Christ or the gospel. It was thoroughly true. Even of his unconverted days we know that he could say, ‘Touching law, a Pharisee; . . . touching righteousness that is in law, found blameless’ (Phi 3:5 , Phi 3:6 ). Of this he thinks and speaks as he confronted the council. Surely it was not according to this new calling and that which was his life now. For Christ was all to him. He was thinking of the Jews, he declared what seemed thoroughly calculated to meet their thoughts. But it utterly failed, and the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by to smite him on the mouth. This was an injurious insult, perpetrated by the judge, and in the teeth of the law. But it is not surprising that the apostle’s words provoked the high priest, and none the less, because he was as far as possible from the conscientiousness of a Gamaliel.
But the apostle resented the contumely and reproved it severely. ‘God will smite thee, whited wall.’ In every respect this was true. Ananias was no more than a hypocritical evil-doer. Our Lord had made an allusion in Mat 23:27 which will help us to understand this; and it appears that God did smite the hypocrite not long after.
As high priest he was sitting to judge Paul after the law, and there contrary to the law he commanded him to be smitten; but did Paul rise in his quick rebuke to the height of grace any more than of truth? The apostle is thoroughly righteous, but he descends rather to the same ground on which they stood; he had spoken with warmth however truly, so that the bystanders could say, ‘Revilest thou God’s high priest? And Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.’
The apostle hastens to acknowledge the error, as far as it was such, whatever might be the unworthiness of the conduct and of the language that occasioned it. Still Ananias was high priest that day. This Paul owns. He ought not to have spoken so of one in that position. The word is plain, ‘Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.’ Overruled of God and prophetic, was it Christ-like? Was it not rather the immediate resentment of a righteous man at an unrighteous deed? He at once apologizes, when he learnt the official state of the judge however unjust. ‘I did not know’ . . . But God loves to guide those who are kept immediately dependent on Him, even when they know nothing of the circumstances.
The apostle throughout scarcely seems to be breathing his ordinary spiritual atmosphere. This comes out still more plainly in what follows. ‘But when Paul perceived that the one part were of Sadducees and the other of Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees1; concerning the hope and resurrection of [the] dead I am judged’ (ver. 6). Here the root of the matter appears. The apostle avails himself of a rent between the two great parties of the Jews, to take the ground which would enlist the more orthodox and God-fearing in his favour. ‘I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees,’ he cried. Was this again according to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was incontestably true; but was it Christ all in all? Was it not rather a prudent appeal sure to split up the crowd before him for himself to fall back on a ground altogether lower than his wont?
1 Such is the reading of the most ancient MSS. with the Vulgate and Pesch. Syr.
Nevertheless there was truth and important truth before all here. ‘I am judged concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead.’ This thoroughly falls in with the Book of the Acts. Luke begins here as his Gospel ends with the resurrection and ascension, and gives full scope to the testimony of the risen Lord throughout. The apostle everywhere consistently urges the hope and resurrection of the dead. It was bound up with Christ, the Son of man; but he does not directly introduce the full truth of His person any more than he puts forward at this time the resurrection ‘from’ the dead. The resurrection ‘of’ the dead is a great and needed truth notwithstanding; and to this, not the Sadducees who now were in power, but the Pharisees in their way held firmly.
The apostle knew resurrection in an incomparably larger measure. To him it was inseparable from the glorified Christ, the Head of the church Who really was his life and his testimony; and for this he endured habitual rejection and suffering. But in Jerusalem the apostle is not found in the same power as elsewhere. The spirit of the place had its influence; in all this business we find him by no means according to that heavenly light which so shines throughout his accustomed orbit.
The high priest Ananias was too truly a representative of the people as a whole. They were no better than a whited wall; and they too in due time afterwards fell under the smiting of God. The apostle turns to the audience as we saw, when he perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees, touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged. ‘And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but Pharisees confess them both. And there arose a great clamour, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ part stood up and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man; and [what] if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel?’ (vers. 7-9).
We have seen all through the Acts of the Apostles that the Sadducees were as prominent in opposition after the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Spirit, as the Pharisees had been while the Lord was on earth. There seems a certain fitness in this. The Righteous One was intolerable to the earthly-minded champions of human righteousness, ever found wanting when weighed in God’s balances. When He rose from the dead, the Sadducees were naturally roused to action, more especially as at the time they were in outward power. The high priests successively seem to have been of that party. The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to infidelity at all times. For it is God’s intervention in power whilst the world goes on as it is, the pledge that the risen One will come and judge it, for He it is Who is of God ordained Judge of quick and dead. Resurrection is the sole and final condition of man which answers to the counsels of God, and which will manifest His glory.
Paul, therefore, perceiving that if one part of his audience were Sadducees, the other were Pharisees, avails himself of the truth held by the Pharisees, which ought to have lifted all above personalities and prejudices. In all cases grace loves to do so, even as flesh finds its wretched pleasure in continual strife and self-seeking. Here too it was of moment to press resurrection as a conditional truth of Christianity, resurrection being not merely at the end but before the end comes. Not that the apostle here refers to resurrection as specifically from the dead; he is content to speak of that which every God-fearing Jew acknowledged – the hope and resurrection of the dead, which was certainly not for judgment of the wicked. Resurrection was not disputed but held from the beginning. Old Testament saints waited for it, not merely Israelites but those who were outside like Job, as may be seen in Job 19:25-27 , when the Redeemer stands on earth at the latter day. Christ personally becomes, as every believer in Christ knows, the seal of the truth of resurrection, for in His case it is not only the dead man raised but raised from among the dead, and so it will be for those raised at His coming.
No Pharisee doubted the resurrection of the dead. Paul was not only a Pharisee but a son of Pharisees, a stronger expression than that which obtains in the Received Text or the Authorized Version. He belonged to a family of Pharisees, who rejected free-thinking and held to the common faith of God’s people.
The effect was immediate. There arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. No doubt the apostle was not here preaching the gospel nor rendering that testimony to which his heart turned habitually. Christ resorted to no such measures when He was being judged; but it was surely righteous in itself if not according to the height of grace in Christ. Yet it was the means of no deliverance to Paul, on the contrary his adversaries were divided, but power was on the side of those who felt the blow struck at their infidelity. ‘For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but Pharisees confess them both.’
The Sadducees were the sceptics of that day and of the lowest kind; they were blinded by materialism, the poisonous error which is now prevailing everywhere throughout Christendom. How solemn that the worst unbelief of Judaism should now pervade an immense part of the baptized in Christendom! Catholic or Protestant, high church or low, or dissent makes little difference. The great expansion of experimental science has in past days fed this distemper far beyond the effect of pure or mixed sciences. Even the discoveries which have added so much to personal ease and selfish enjoyment, all tend to help it on. Man in his present life becomes everything: God is excluded, not to say denied, because He is unseen.
The resurrection of the dead, and yet more from the dead, is the grand weapon of faith against prevailing error and in favour of souls in danger of destruction. The God Who raised up Jesus from the dead is sending remission of sins through His name. To Him give all the prophets witness (how much more the gospel!), that everyone who believes on Him shall receive both the forgiveness he needs, and the life in Christ without which there can be no living to God. This alone is the true deliverance from Sadduceeism then, or from that which is akin at the present time.
‘And when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them and bring [him] into the castle. And the night following the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer,1 for as thou hast fully testified concerning Me at Jerusalem so also must thou testify at Rome’ (vers. 10, 11).
1 ‘Paul’ is not in the best authorities.
The Gentile in chief command was not used to the gusts of violence that blew among the Jews when a question of religious difference sprung up and roused them. At this time indeed religious indifference prevailed excessively among the heathen. It was not so among the Jews, though their modal condition was wretched in the extreme. The chiliarch, therefore, being alarmed at the agitation, had Paul removed from the midst of men who seemed excited enough to tear him in pieces.
It was a time when the apostle might have been much tried. He had appealed to orthodox feeling against the Sadducean unbelief that sought his destruction, but he was a prisoner still, though safely guarded by Roman soldiers. It was not the happiest position for one who valued nothing but Christ. So much the more gracious was that which we last read, ‘And the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, for as thou didst fully testify the things about Me at Jerusalem, so must thou also testify at Rome.’ Truly the Lord is good: not a word of blame, nothing but assurance of help, and this by so remarkable a manifestation at the very time when discouragement would have been natural. The apostle’s visit to Jerusalem had not resulted in the least as he himself desired. He might have regarded it as only a failure. The Lord noticed nothing but his faithful testimony; and He adds that so he must testify at Rome also
This was evidently then the corrected and proper scope of Paul’s allotted sphere: Jerusalem was outside it. For Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision, as Paul was, beyond all controversy, with that of the uncircumcision, under which came Rome as the then metropolis of the world. Thither the apostle was to go, not free but in bonds, a prisoner, as suited the Lord, whilst it was a part of His moral government because he would go to Jerusalem. The greatest representative of the gospel was to enter Rome in a chain!
Has the gospel ever been otherwise at Rome? It is not that God had not work there already done. Many souls there were before this, calling on the name of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles, as the Epistle to the Romans lets us see, but the great witness of the gospel was to enter Rome as a prisoner. If released afterwards, he returned, a prisoner again, to die at Rome for Christ. It was indeed a solemn type, as foreshadowing what Rome would ever prove to the gospel of God.
‘And when it was day the Jews, having made a combination, put themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And those that made the conspiracy were more than forty, who therefore () came to the chief priests and the elders, and said, We have put ourselves under a great curse,1 to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. Now therefore do ye, with the council, signify to the commander that he bring him down unto you,2 as though ye would judge his cause more exactly. But we, before he come near, are ready to slay him’ (vers. 12-15).
1 ‘We have cursed ourselves with a curse’ it is literally; which may be correctly rendered, ‘a great curse’.
2 ‘Tomorrow’, though read by HLP and most, is not in the oldest witnesses, but implied of course in the story.
It is sorrowful to read the dark conspiracy of the Jews at this time. They were no better than the heathen, but rather worse as knowing better. So it ever is where light shines in measure without grace; it becomes deeper darkness. Deceit and violence characterized them, especially where the gospel was concerned, and none was so identified with it as Paul. God’s word in the Law and the Psalms and the Prophets was too truly verified in their case. Their feet were swift to shed blood, and with their tongues they used deceit. They did not know the way of peace, but hated most him who preached and lived it. Alas! there was no fear of God before their eyes. And it is evident that the ecclesiastical chiefs were quite as much implicated as the blood-thirsty rabble, the prey of crafty leaders who taught that religion sanctifies murder (Joh 16:2 ). It is therefore said to be ‘the Jews’ not merely ‘some of the Jews’, as in the softened words of the Received Text. Accordingly, when the conspirators told the religious leaders their plot to murder Paul on his way to the council, not a word of remonstrance or horror! The chief priests and the elders were really therefore the more guilty. Dr. Hackett and others cite from Philo a passage which remarkably illustrates such conduct as a principle calmly laid down without the smallest sense of its atrocity. Now Philo was a contemporary Jew of Alexandria.
But God knows how to defeat wicked efforts against His servants. As He had comforted Paul’s heart privately, so now He wrought providentially and, singular to say, through a relative of Paul himself who was there. ‘But Paul’s sister’s son heard of the ambush, and having come and entered into the castle, he reported it to Paul. And Paul called to [him] one of the centurions and said, Bring this young man to the commander, for he hath something to report to him. He therefore took and brought him to the commander, and saith, The prisoner Paul called me to [him] and asked me to bring this young man to thee, as he hath something to say to thee. And the commander took him by the hand, and going aside privately asked, What is that which you have to report to me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to ask thee to bring down Paul to-morrow into the council, as though they would inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him. Do not thou therefore yield to them; for there lie in ambush for him more than forty men of them, who put themselves under a curse neither to eat nor to drink till they have slain him, and now they are ready, looking for the1 promise from thee. So the commander let the young man go, charging him, Tell no man that thou didst show these things unto me’ (vers. 16-22).
1 Not ‘a’, but what they counted on already.
Whatever may have been the haste of Lysias at first, he appears to have waked up thoroughly to his duty on behalf of the prisoner against his relentless enemies, and to have sought at last to make up in kindness for the wrong then done.
It is instructive also to observe how far the apostle was from fanaticism in his proceedings. For, although the Lord had miraculously guaranteed his preservation that he might have the desire of his heart in bearing witness of Christ in Rome, he did not count it beneath him to advertise the military chief of the plot against his life. Confidence in the word of God does not despise or dispense with legitimate means. Perhaps men are not wanting who flatter themselves that they may be more faithful or spiritual than he.
The commander was prompt in action, as we have seen him considerate with Paul’s young kinsman. ‘And he called unto him some two of the centurions and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers, that they may go as far as Caesarea, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen,1 at the third hour of the night. And [he bade them] provide beasts that they might set Paul on and bring [him] safe through unto Felix the governor, having written a letter in this form: Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. This man when seized by the Jews and about to be slain by them, I coming up with the soldiery rescued, having learnt that he was a Roman. And wishing to know thoroughly the cause for which they accused him, I brought [him] down unto their council, whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have no charge laid worthy of death or bonds. And when it was shown to me that a plot would be against the man, I forthwith sent [him] unto thee, charging his accusers also to speak against him before thee. [Farewell]’ (vers. 23-30).
1 ‘Spearmen’ is rather a guess for , which has been variously but not yet satisfactorily explained. Meyer cites Const. Porphyrog. who distinguishes the from bowmen and targeteers. Grasping the weapon with the right hand is not very distinctive.
How the letter became known to the Evangelist we cannot say; but there it is with every mark of genuineness, and so much the more, because we can readily see that the commander was not scrupulous as to truth, and sought to commend his own zeal and services to the governor. God is not straitened as to means, knowing all without means, and ever and anon communicating what is good for us to know as He sees fit. The commander in fact only learnt that Paul was a Roman after he had caused him to be tied up for scourging, a serious infraction of the law as against a citizen. But it is quite natural that he, a heathen, should do what he could to hide his past fault by professing zeal exactly where he had failed. Little did he anticipate that a letter meant only for the eyes of Felix was to stand on the indelible page of Holy Writ with the falsehood rendered evident by the history without a word of comment, as is the manner of Scripture. Nor was there the smallest wish in the blessed prisoner to expose the wrong. But God would give us to learn thereby what man is, and what God is, confiding in His care in abhorrence of evil and cleaving to good.
The immense guard provided for the safe conduct of a prisoner, confessedly not guilty of punishment, proved the commander’s estimate of Jewish perfidy and violence; and this on the night when his information of their plot was received. How sad to see vindictiveness and deceit in the Jews abhorred and thwarted by heathen resoluteness to stand by earthly righteousness and order’ Truly the foundations were out of course: not that the Romans were not evil, but that God’s people, the Jews, were yet more deplorably bad.
Nor was Felix, the procurator of Judea, ignorant of their moral state, though himself a man of more than usually mean, cruel, and abandoned character. Not only was he married to a Jewish wife, but he seems to have been a joint-governor for years before his promotion to the sole dignity, though herein Tacitus and Josephus clash not a little. During his office he had ample experience of insurrection and of intrigue, of bloodshed and of plots, in dealing with which his servile origin gave only, as is usual, a haughtier tone and stronger impulse to his ruthless policy. Still he easily understood on what slender grounds the Jews might pursue to death an object of their unrelenting animosity. A Roman governor too was not to be less firm in upholding Roman law in the presence of Jews who boasted of a divine revelation. All this God’s providence used in favour of His servant. The notion that so large a retinue was intended as a special honour of Christ’s minister is a blunder, from not seeing that the true glory of the Christian is in his conformity to Christ’s cross.
‘The soldiers therefore, as it was commanded them, took up Paul and brought [him] by night unto Antipatris. But on the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him and returned to the castle; and they, when they entered into Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, presented Paul also to him. And when he had read [it] and asked of what province he was, and understood that he was of Cilicia, I will hear thee fully, said he, when thine accusers also are arrived. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s praetorium’ (vers. 31-35).
The description is vivid, as we ordinarily find in the narrative of Luke. Kefr-Saba was the ancient name of the city whence the foot-soldiers returned, as all danger of ambush or pursuit was then past. When Herod rebuilt it, he called the new city Antipatris, in honour of his father. It was some twenty-six miles from Caesarea, but considerably more from Jerusalem, even by the direct route through Gophna, discovered by Dr. Eli Smith, with many a mark of Roman use. The Jerusalem Itinerary makes the distance of Caesarea from Jerusalem sixty-eight miles, but this was the more circuitous route by Bethhoron and Lydda. Nowhere did Herod lavish such effort to render a city magnificent. It is now an utter ruin. There the apostle remained a prisoner for years before he was sent on to Rome. But of this we are to hear more in the history that follows.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 23:1-5
1Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” 2The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” 4But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” 5And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'”
Act 23:1
NASB, NRSV”looking intently at”
NKJV”looking earnestly at”
TEV”looked straight at”
NJB”looked steadily at”
See full note at Act 1:10. Luke uses this term often. Here he uses it of Paul. Paul uses it only in 2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:13.
“the Council” See Special Topic: Sanhedrin at Act 4:5.
“Brethren” Paul calls Jews “brothers” several times (Act 13:26; Act 13:38; Act 22:1; Act 22:5; Act 23:1; Act 23:5-6). The Jews call Paul brother in Act 13:15. Ananias called him brother in Act 9:17, as does the church in Jerusalem in Act 21:20.
However, Jewish believers are also called by this title (e.g., Act 9:30; Act 10:23; Act 11:1; Act 11:12; Act 12:17; Act 15:3; Act 15:7; Act 15:13; Act 15:22). The word is linked with “disciple” in Act 11:29; Act 18:27. It is also used of Greek believers in Act 16:2; Act 16:40. Thus the term is ambiguous and must be linked to a specific text and group.
“I have lived my life. . .before God” This is a perfect middle (deponent) indicative of politeu from which we get the English word political or policy. This term is used with the connotation of a citizen (cf. Php 1:27). Paul is asserting that he has faithfully discharged the responsibilities of being a member of Judaism before God.
NASB”a perfectly good conscience”
NKJV”in all good conscience”
NRSV”a clear conscience”
TEV”my conscience is perfectly clear”
NJB”a perfectly clear conscience”
Paul uses the term “conscience” often in the Corinthian letters (cf. Act 4:4; Act 8:7; Act 8:10; Act 8:12; Act 10:25; Act 10:27-29; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 5:11). It refers to that moral inner sense of what is appropriate or inappropriate (cf. Act 23:1). The conscience can be affected by our past lives, our poor choices, or by the Spirit of God. It is not a flawless guide, but it does determine the boundaries of individual faith. Therefore, to violate our conscience, even if it is in error or weak, is a major faith problem.
The believer’s conscience needs to be more and more formed by the Word of God and the Spirit of God (cf. 1Ti 3:9). God will judge believers (i.e., weak or strong, cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13) by the light they have, but all of us need to be open to the Bible and the Spirit for more light and to be growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
“before God up to this day” Paul makes this same assertion in 2Co 1:12; 2Ti 1:3. He does admit that he did covet (cf. Rom 7:23, esp. Act 23:7). His theological argument in Romans 1-8 is based on every person’s violation of law and conscience (cf. Act 3:9-23; Act 4:15; Act 5:20).
Act 23:2 “The high priest Ananias” In Hebrew his name would be Hananiah. This is not the same as the Ananias of Luk 3:2, Joh 18:13, or Act 4:6, but a later one (Ananias, son of Nebedaeus or Nedebacus) who was appointed by Herod Chalcis, who reigned from A.D. 48-59 (Josephus, Antiq. 20.9.2).
The writings of Josephus tell us much about this High Priest.
1. when he became High Priest, Antiq. 20.5.2; Wars, 2.12.6.
2. when he and his son (Ananus) were sent in bonds to Rome, Antiq. 20.6.2
3. when he was killed by insurrectionists along with his brother, Wars 2.17.9
Josephus is often our only ancient contemporary source for Jewish events and persons in Palestine.
“to strike him on the mouth” This was a sign of blasphemy (cf. Joh 18:22).
Act 23:3 “God is going to strike you” This is recorded in great detail in Josephus, Wars 2.17.9.
“you whitewashed wall” It is uncertain exactly what Paul was saying.
1. the Jews used this metaphor for hypocrisy (cf. Mat 23:27)
2. it could be an allusion to Eze 13:10-15
“in violation to the Law” This may be an allusion to Lev 19:15. Also see Joh 7:51.
Act 23:5 “I was not aware brethren, that he was high priest” The theories for Paul’s not knowing are his
1. poor eyesight
2. not being familiar with him because Paul had been gone from Jerusalem for several years
3. not recognizing the High Priest because he was not wearing his official robes
4. he did not know who spoke
5. the inappropriateness of his actions (i.e., sarcasm)
“for it is written” Paul shows he knows and respects the Law by quoting Exo 22:28.
earnestly beholding. Greek. atenizo. App-133.
council. See note on Act 22:30.
Men and brethren. See note on Act 1:11.
lived. Greek. politeuomai, to live as a citizen. Only here and Php 1:1, Php 1:27.
conscience. Greek. suneidesis. Compare Act 24:16.
before = to.
God. App-98.
1.] seems to describe that peculiar look, connected probably with infirmity of sight, with which Paul has already been described as regarding those before him: and may perhaps account for his not knowing that the person who spoke to him was the high priest, Act 23:5. See ch. Act 13:9, note.
The purport of Pauls assertion seems to be this: being charged with neglecting, and teaching others to neglect the law of Moses, he at once endeavours to disarm those who thus accused him, by asserting that up to that day he had lived a true and loyal Jew,-obeying, according to his conscience, the law of that divine of which he was a covenant member. Thus will have its full and proper meaning: and the words are no vain-glorious ones, but an important assertion of his innocence.
Chapter 23
And so Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day ( Act 23:1 ).
Paul was indeed a remarkable man. As Paul is writing to the Philippian church and sharing with them the natural advantages that he had before he accepted Jesus Christ as far as having a righteous standing before God by works, he said, “Those things which were gain to me,” talking about the fact that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee, and he said, “and concerning the keeping of the law, I was blameless.” Quite a remarkable man. To be able to say I have had always a good conscience before God up until this point. Now, I can’t make that kind of a statement. Paul was really some kind of a fellow to be able to state . . . and I don’t know how many of you could make that kind of a statement; I’ve always had a good conscience before God up until this point, up till this day. The high priest didn’t believe him.
Ananias commanded those that were standing by him to hit him in the mouth. And Paul said unto him, God will smite you, you whitewashed wall ( Act 23:2-3 ):
Jesus made reference to the Pharisees as whitewashed sepulchers. The Jews were very careful about touching a dead body or anything that had touched a dead body. For according to the Jewish law, to touch a dead body or anything that had touched a dead body would make you unclean, and you would not be able to go into the temple to worship God until you had gone through a ceremonial cleansing. And this ceremonial cleansing had to be done in running water.
Our last trip over to Israel, we had gone down into the spring of Gihon and the people were looking down the bottom of the shaft at the spring of Gihon there in the Kidron valley, and as we were there and talking about the spring and the cave that went from the spring of Gihon over to the pool of Siloam, some 1700 feet by the King Hezekiah and all, there was this young Jewish fellow with his black robes and black hat and curls and all who came into the spring. He was wanting to bathe in order to make himself ceremonially clean so he could go and pray at the Western Wall. And he got very impatient with us and our group taking so long looking at the spring, so he started disrobing. And so he could get in the water, and you got to dip in running water in order that it might make you clean. We got the message and got out of there as he was getting into the water.
But it’s just one of those things to become clean so you can worship in the temple, you’ve got to go through this ceremony of washing in running water. So they didn’t want to touch a dead body or anything that was touching a dead body or near a dead body and therefore, when they would put up the tombstones, they would always paint them with whitewash so that people would see them and be careful not to touch them. So they would whitewash them so people wouldn’t touch them accidentally.
And so Paul said, “You’re just a whitewashed wall. You’re unclean; you’ve got death.” He lost his cool, really, and just didn’t really turn the other cheek, but he said, “God will smite you, you whitewashed wall.” Paul was upset because:
you’re sitting here to judge me concerning the law, and yet you have commanded me to be smitten contrary to the law? ( Act 23:3 )
It was unlawful to just hit the prisoner during interrogation. So Paul was upset. Here a guy is supposed to be a judge of the law and he’s violating the law himself, and it just snapped in Paul and so he flared and called him the whitewashed wall.
Interestingly enough, in two years God did smite old Ananias, his whitewashed wall; he was assassinated within two years of this time.
And they that stood by said ( Act 23:4 ),
They were probably shocked. They said,
Revilest thou the high priest? ( Act 23:4 )
This perhaps is an indication that Paul did have eye trouble, because Paul said,
I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people ( Act 23:5 ).
There are other indications that Paul did have eye problems. This is thought by many to have been his thorn in the flesh, “the minister of Satan buffeting him”. He, writing his Galatian letter, said, “You had such love for me. Some of you would have, if possible, given me your own eyes” ( Gal 4:15 ). And it could be a very direct reference to severe eye problems. So according to some of the early stories, Paul was a short, bony, little Jew with constant running eyes from his eye problems, squinting, with a very large angular nose. I don’t care what he looks like. I love the guy. Oh, what a mind.
Isaac Watts was a short, little fellow, less than five feet tall. And yet, probably one of the greatest minds of England. He was always sickly, Isaac Watts, just a short, sickly little fellow. And that is why he wrote, “Were I so tall to reach the pole or span the ocean with my hand. I must be measured by my soul, for the mind is the standard of a man.” You see, he didn’t have much of a physical prowess, but oh, what a mental prowess this man had.
Paul the apostle, not much to look at physically, but spiritually he’s beautiful. And so he’s probably squinting, “I didn’t know that was the high priest. Sorry about that, fellow, because the Bible says I’m not supposed to revile the ruler. Sorry about that.”
Now when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee: and of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question today. And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angels, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and they strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let’s not fight against God. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest they would have torn Paul to pieces, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, to bring him into the castle ( Act 23:6-10 ).
So again, Paul’s endeavor to bear witness ends in riot. His lifelong dream and ambition to preach the Gospel to the Jews, he felt he could be successful. It was an absolute, total, miserable failure. Both endeavors ended in riot.
There are some who perceive this as a very clever move on Paul’s part to bring a division among his accusers. They look at it as a clever, clever scheme by Paul to pit the Sadducees against the Pharisees, so while they are all fighting, he can slip out under the table and get out and leave the whole room going at each other. That’s possibly so. I personally don’t believe it. I believe that Paul was intending to preach the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees. And so he brings up the fact, “I’m a Pharisee.” Again, seeking to identify. “And it’s because I believe in the resurrection that I’ve been brought here.” And I believe that he wanted to go on and preach to those Pharisees the truth of the resurrection through Jesus Christ. But before he had that chance, the whole thing exploded and he had to be taken by force from among them before they tore him to pieces.
Paul must have been extremely discouraged, brought back to the Antonial Fortress, placed back into protective custody of the Roman government. As night began to fall, Paul must have been extremely discouraged sitting there, not knowing what the future held. Only aware of his failure to fulfill his lifelong dream to bring salvation to his brothers according to the flesh.
Paul had such an intense love for the Jews, that he said in his Roman epistles that he could wish himself accursed from God for his brethren’s sake according to the flesh. He testified of his great love for them. He had had a yearning to preach to them and finally the opportunity came, perhaps forced by Paul, but nonetheless, that was his big moment. And it ended in disaster.
Here you’re confident that you’re able to do something. You’re so sure, “If I just got a chance, I just haven’t had the chance. If I just had a chance. Give me the chance.” You’re a halfback, and you know that you could run through that line and outrun the backfield and you could score. “Oh, let me have the ball; let me carry the ball.” Every time you go back to the huddle you’re telling the quarterback, “I want to carry it, I want to carry it. Give me a chance, give me a chance.” So he finally calls the play. Your number, you get the chance. Quarterback receives the ball from center, hands off to you, you start through the line and one of the big tackles grab you, strips the ball, you fumble, the other team recovers. The coach pulls you out. You’re sitting on a bench. “My big moment; I blew it.”
Discouraged, dejected, Paul sat there. In that time of dejection and discouragement, the Lord came and stood by him. How beautiful. How beautiful.
And the Lord said, Be of good cheer, Paul ( Act 23:11 ):
The word in Greek has been translated in another place, “Be of good courage.” Jesus said this on many occasions, and it might be a little interesting study for you to go back and see the various places where Jesus said, “Be of good cheer, be of good courage.” When the disciples were in the ship trying to go across the other side, and Jesus came walking on the water and they were frightened, they thought they were seeing a ghost, He said, “Be of good courage.” You guys are scared to death. “Be of good courage; it’s I” ( Mat 14:27 ).
“Paul, be of good courage.” Shows that he was discouraged. He probably thought, “This is it; this is the end. I’m no good. I can’t do anything for God. I finally got my chance and I just, why did I say Gentile? Why did I blow my cool? Call the high priest a whitewashed wall. What’s wrong with me? If I had not said Gentile, if I had just done this, if I just said that.” Oh, how easy it is to sink in the quagmire of the why’s and the if’s of life, as we go back and try to change what is. But all it can do is take us deeper into that slough of despair. Paul was sinking, and so the Lord came and stood by him. “Be of good cheer, Paul, be of good courage.”
for as you have testified of me in Jerusalem ( Act 23:11 ),
“Alright, Paul, you’ve done it. You’ve had your chance and you testified of me in Jerusalem.” Now the Lord isn’t making light of it. The Lord is acknowledging it. The Lord is not condemning Paul. The Lord doesn’t join Paul in his why’s and if’s. He didn’t say, “Paul, why did you lose your cool, man? Paul, how could you have been so stupid as to mention Gentiles. You know their attitude towards Gentiles.” He didn’t come in condemning Paul. He came in commending him, which is so true of Jesus.
How is it that we always seem to picture Jesus as condemning us. Probably because of all the preachers we’ve heard in the past. I know that that’s true in my own case. Man, I’ve been condemned by so many preachers during my whole lifetime. The finger was always pointing at me. And so, I, in my mind, just associated that with Jesus and I figured Jesus was constantly condemning me for good reason. But one day I read, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” ( Rom 8:1 ). And I read where Jesus said, “I did not come to condemn the world, but that the world through Me might be saved. And he that believeth is not condemned” ( Joh 3:17 , Joh 3:18 ). And then I read Paul’s question, “Who is he that condemneth?” And I read his answer, “Not Jesus, for He died, yea rather, is risen again, and is even at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for me” ( Rom 8:34 ). He’s not my condemner; He’s my intercessor. And my whole life changed. My relationship with Jesus changed completely when I found out that He was there to lift me up instead of to push me down. He was there to draw me in instead of push me out. He was there to lift me up. How thankful I am for Jesus.
He stood by Paul and He said, “Be of good courage, Paul: for as you have testified of Me in Jerusalem . . . ” And He acknowledged, “Paul, you have testified of Me here; you’ve given them the testimony.”
so must you also bear witness of me in Rome ( Act 23:11 ).
“Rome? Lord, did You say Rome? Alright!” Because when Paul began this whole journey back in Ephesus, taking off first from Macedonia and then to Greece to collect the offerings from the churches that he might bring them to the poor saints in Jerusalem, as he was leaving Ephesus he said, “I am going to head off this way because,” he said, “I want to get to Jerusalem before the feast of the Passover.” And he said, “And I must also see Rome.” He was expressing there a deep desire in his heart, “I want to see Rome.” Paul was always challenged by the centers of the world, by the population centers and by the cultural centers. “If I can only bear witness of Jesus in Rome.” And Jesus said, “Be of good cheer, Paul, you’ve testified of me here in Jerusalem, now you’ve got to bear witness of Me in Rome.” “Rome?” The new courage, the new hope, the new faith, the new calling. Back on the road. The new zeal, the new drive. Ready to go again.
It’s always comforting when the Lord sets out a destination for us, because we know that nothing can deter us until we reach that destination. There were a lot of things that come in Paul’s path before he gets to Rome as we’ll find out this next week. One of them in the next verse.
And when it was day, there were certain of the Jews that banded together, and bound themselves under a curse ( Act 23:12 ),
What they do is say, “May God curse us if we don’t accomplish this task.” So they bind themselves with this curse. “God curse us if we don’t do it.” And so, they bound themselves under the curse.
saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul ( Act 23:12 ).
They really were out to get him.
And they were more than forty which entered into this conspiracy. And they came to the chief priests and the elders ( Act 23:13-14 ),
Who evidently weren’t that honorable of people.
and they said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul. Now we want you with the council to signify to the chief captain that he bring Paul down to you to morrow, as though you would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, before he ever gets here, will pounce on him and we’re ready to kill him. Now Paul’s sister’s son ( Act 23:14-16 )
This is the only mention of any relatives of Paul in the scriptures, but his nephew, his sister’s son,
heard of this plot to ambush him, and so he entered into the castle, and told Paul ( Act 23:16 ).
Remember, the Lord said to Paul, “You must bear witness of Me in Rome.” Because the Lord said that, you can be sure Paul’s going to bear witness in Rome. The word of the Lord has to come to pass. The Lord speaks with that advantage of foreknowledge, or what they call precognition today, so that when the Lord said, “You must bear witness of Me in Rome,” Paul will surely get to Rome. Now here’s an obstacle. No little obstacle, forty guys taking this curse upon themselves, not going to eat or drink till they kill him.
God works His supernatural ways often in the natural. I was talking with a pastor this week who had come in to just sit down and share some time together in the Word and exploring some of the things of God. And I said to him, “It’s very important that we as Christians learn to discover how that the supernatural works in natural ways. The danger many times is not to recognize the work of God because it seems so natural. But in reality, it is God’s work; therefore, it is supernatural. But sometimes people are so spiritually dull that they don’t recognize the supernatural unless there is some kind of spectacular phenomena. But a person who is keenly attuned to spiritual things will learn to see God and recognize the hand of God in very natural circumstances. And we must not look for God only in some kind of spectacular phenomena, but begin to look for Him in the very natural things. For God works His supernatural works in very natural ways.”
And so it seems quite natural that this little boy listening to these men talk, and they’re talking about my uncle Paul, and so he listens to their plot. I see the supernatural in that. God has to protect Paul from the plot, so he plants this little kid. And who knows what the little kid was doing when suddenly he got the idea to run over and play with his little friend. And when he got over to his little friend’s house, his dad was in there with a bunch of guys and here they were plotting, talking about, “We’ll get him; we don’t need . . . ” And by what method God got that little kid where he heard it, I don’t know. But it was supernatural, and yet it seems so natural.
So he came and he warned Paul.
Paul called one of the centurions, and he said, Take this little boy to the captain: for he has some things to tell him. So he took him, brought him to the chief captain, and he said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him ( Act 23:17-18 ).
The centurion brought him in and he said,
Paul called me and he asked me to bring this little boy to you, who has something to say unto you. So the chief captain took him by the hand, and he went aside privately with him, and he said, What is it that you need to tell me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring down Paul to-morrow to the council, because they are going to pretend that they want to enquire somewhat of him more perfectly. But don’t yield to their request: for they’re lying in wait, about forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they’re not going to eat or drink until they have killed him: and so now they’re going to be coming real quick for a promise from you to bring him down. So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and he charged him and he said, Don’t tell anybody that you have showed me these things. So he called to him two centurions, and he said, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen, at the third hour of the night; And provide them with animals, that they may set Paul on them, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor. And he wrote a letter after this manner: Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix I send greetings. This man was taken of the Jews, and would have been killed by them: and I came with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman. And when I would have known the cause why they were accusing him, I brought him forth into their council: And I perceived that all they were doing is accusing him of questions about their law, but have laid no charges against him that are worthy of death or imprisonment. And when it was told me how that the Jews were ready to ambush the man, I sent him straightway to thee, and I gave commandment to his accusers also to say before you what they have against him. Farewell. Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris ( Act 23:18-31 ).
From Jerusalem to Caesarea is a journey of about sixty miles, of which some forty miles are through mountain country where the Jews lived and would have been easy to ambush Paul. From Antipatris, that is at the foot of the Jerusalem mountains, and from there to Caesarea is just flatland and be difficult to ambush someone in that area. So, “Paul,” the Lord says, “You got to go to Rome.” And he starts off in a royal way with an escort of four hundred and seventy soldiers. Seventy cavalry men and there are two hundred spearmen and two hundred foot soldiers, infantry troops that are accompanying Paul out of Rome, the forty miles to Antipatris where the foot soldiers and the spearmen leave and the cavalry men take Paul on then from Antipatris to Caesarea that he might be tried before Felix.
This fellow Felix, before whom Paul was to be tried, was at one time a slave. He had a brother Pallus, and Pallus was one of Nero’s favorite persons. His brother Pallus interceded with Nero, and Nero freed Felix from his slavery. Through the continued intercession of his brother Pallus, Nero made him the only slave to become a governor in the Roman Empire up to that point. He was the first slave who became a governor.
However, he was a very crude person. He was corrupt. And Tachitus the historian said he governed like a slave. Felix had three wives in quick succession. We do not know the name of his first wife, the second was the granddaughter to Cleopatra and Anthony, whom he divorced and married finally Druscilla, who was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I. At this time, Felix had been reigning as governor over the province for five years. Very corrupt reign. He was to reign for two more years before being deposed and banished by the Roman government because of his corruption. So this is the man before whom Paul must appear now to make his next defense.
When they came to Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor, and they presented Paul also before him. And when the governor had read the letter, he asked what province Paul was from. And he answered Cilicia; And he said, I will hear thee, when your accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall ( Act 23:33-35 ).
Herod had built a palace in Caesarea, so Paul’s stay wasn’t too bad there in Caesarea. It’s a beautiful Mediterranean port. He was there in Herod’s palace, the judgment hall that was made by Herod there. Herod made a fabulous city; the ruins of Herod’s period in Caesarea are awesome. The hippodrome, the stadium, and those ruins that date back to Herod’s time are absolutely awesome there in Caesarea. So Paul is now a prisoner in Herod’s palace in Caesarea to await this crew who come down next week in our lesson and make their accusation, having hired this sharp attorney who is a silver-tongue groggier.
So next week let’s see if we can finish the book of Acts. That’s your assignment, and we’ll see how far we can go.
I believe that we’re really on the verge of seeing another great marvelous move of God. I really feel that God is desiring to do more, even more than we’ve already seen, and what we’ve already seen is just so phenomenal, I can’t handle it. But I really feel that God wants to do even more for us, and I want to be open to God. That’s my desire. I really don’t have any ambitions for greatness or power or notoriety. I just want to do what God wants done. I really feel that God is wanting to do more. I want to be open to whatever God might want to do. So I would just encourage you, fellows, come on out and let’s just pray. Let’s make ourselves available to God to just see what God might want to do. Maybe He’s satisfied with what He has done. I don’t think so, but maybe. But that’s alright too. Let’s give Him a chance anyhow.
I always like to just make myself available to God. “Here I am, Lord, want to do anything? I’m available.” It’s an exciting life. That life of availability to God. Because you never know what God is going to call upon you to do any given time.
My wife and I were going home from church Thursday night. We got down here to Baker and Adams, and actually what happened was a police car passed us as we were going home. And we were right at the freeway, and this police car came screaming by with lights and siren and the whole thing, and I saw him make a quick U and park there on Baker, so we knew that we were going to come up on whatever was there. There was a car parked there in the intersection and there was a guy lying there on the pavement. And my wife says, “Honey, go see if you can do anything. See if he’s alright. He’s just lying there.” A lot of people run up and gather around. She said, “Go see if you can do anything, Honey.” So I started to park, and she said, “Oh, God, help that poor guy.” I’ve never seen such a quick answer to prayer. Before I got there, the guy was standing up and limping off. Real power through prayer.
But you never know what God might have in store. So availability to Him. God bless you. May He give you a good week. And may He use your life and may each of our hearts be open to the Spirit, that God might work in us His supernatural works in supernatural or natural ways, whatever way He sees fit. But that God will just use my life and work through my life His work this week. “
Act 23:1. , having earnestly fixed, his eyes upon) with a countenance indicative of a good conscience; waiting also to see whether anyone of the chief priests was about to ask any question.-, I) By this protestation he gained his point, that no former act of his could be alleged as a charge against him, but that that truth which he was about to assert in the end of Act 23:6, might be brought forward as the one and only cause of his imprisonment: ch. Act 24:21.-, conscience) ch. Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12. Paul speaks especially of his state after conversion: for concerning his former state no one moved any controversy with him. And yet even in his former state, although he was labouring under error, he had obeyed conscience, and had not committed aught which could constitute him guilty before the bar of external justice. Now, since he has not cast away whatever of good he formerly had, but has received better goods, the light was pouring itself out of his present state into his former state.- , before God) although all men did not approve of it.
Act 23:1-10
PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN
Act 23:1-10
1 And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council,-Paul fixed his eyes intently on the council; he had been brought before it to answer for his conduct. He was not a criminal-he had done nothing wrong. The Sanhedrin had discovered that Paul was accused of some religious offense; he was summoned before the council that they might find out what the accusations were; Paul himself did not know what the charges were. He had not been in the hall of the council since he had sat as a member of the court probably twenty-two years ago. He politely addressed the members of the council and declared his sincerity at once. He declared that he had lived before God in all good conscience until this day. Conscience comes from the Greek suneidesis, and means joint knowledge. The Latin is conscientia, from which our English conscience is derived. The Greek word for lived means having a citizenship. This statement simply means that Paul had performed the duties of a citizen in a good conscience to God. (Php 3:6 Php 3:20.) Paul declared that he had lived in such obedience to Gods law that he had a clear conscience; it does not mean that he is claiming that he had not sinned. (1Ti 1:15.)
2 And the high priest Ananias-The smiting on the mouth was a judicial and symbolic mode of silencing the speaker from saying what was improper or false. Ananias is not to be confused with Annas. (Act 4:6.) Ananias is thought to have been the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed high priest by Herod in A.D. 48. History describes him as being violent, cruel, and gluttonous. It is recorded that he was assassinated about ten years later.
3 Then said Paul unto him,-Paul very boldly rebuked the high priest for his conduct. He said: God shall smite thee, thou whited wall. Whited wall is the reflection of a stronger figure used by Christ, whited sepulcher. (Mat 23:27.) Paul gives his reason for the injustice done to him. Sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law. The spirit of the law of Moses forbade one to be condemned without first being heard. Paul shows the inconsistency between theory and fact; Ananias should have upheld the dignity of the law by obeying it himself. His conduct is similar to mob violence today. The victim may need punishment, but for unconstituted authority to mete out the punishment is illegal. Paul here impeaches the high priest in the name of Christ.
4 And they that stood by said,-The attendants and servants of the high priest and the Sanhedrin rebuked Paul for his speech. The high priest was Gods representative in spite of his bad character. (Deu 17:8 f.) These attendants claim for Ananias all the dignity, sanctity, and prerogative of his office as Gods high priest; this was against what Paul had already plainly intimated, that Ananias was acting in direct opposition to God. Paul made reply to these attendants which showed that he understood the situation.
5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren,-This shows that Paul did not know that it was the order of the high priest for him to be smitten. Some take the view that Paul did not know that Ananias was the high priest. Surely, Paul, who had served as a member of the Sanhedrin, and who was familiar with the proceedings of the council, would know the high priest. We cannot conceive of such ignorance on the part of Paul; hence, we must look for another view of the matter. The Greek means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. Some think that Pauls eyesight was not good, and that he did not recognize Ananias as the high priest. It matters not what interpretation may be given to Pauls language, he recognized, and so do we, that he was not treated justly. He quotes Exo 22:28, showing that he knew the law.
6 But when Paul perceived-Paul quickly saw the attitude of the Sanhedrin toward him; he saw that he could not get a fair hearing before the Sanhedrin. He further saw that there were two parties in the council, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He knew the difference between these parties and tactfully brought them to clash with each other. He declared that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. He refers to this later in his letter to the church at Philippi. (Php 3:5.) He further declared that he was called in question because of the resurrection of the dead. This is not out of harmony with the statement that he did not know what charges would be preferred against him. He mentions this point at another time. (Act 24:21.) The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was the resurrection; this was Pauls chief point in preaching the gospel. If Christ had not been raised from the dead, his preaching was false. (1Co 15:13-14.)
7 And when he had so said,-Pauls declaration started in the Sanhedrin a discussion on the great question of the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were bitterly opposed to the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection. The party cries were at once heard, and Paul was prevented from going on with his argument for the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of Christ. The difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were partly social and partly religious. The Sadducees were the Jewish aristocracy; they aimed at preserving the temple service and the written regulations of the law of Moses. Their theory or teaching limited mans existence to this present life, and hence they denied a resurrection and a future life. The Pharisees became the leaders of the people in the days of the Persian and Greek rule; they were the unwavering champions of the ceremonial separation under Roman authority. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and through that faith Paul and many others had been brought to acknowledge the crucified and risen Lord.
8 For the Sadducees say-The Sadducees denied the resurrection, angels, and spirits. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees believed in a negative doctrine; they denied three things: (1) the resurrection, believing that the soul dies with the body; (2) the existence of angels and (3) the existence of spirits. The Sadducees cared very little for religion; they dropped out of history soon after the first century of the Christian era. The Pharisees believed in a future life, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of both angels and spirits.
9 And there arose a great clamor:-The dissension grew fiercer until there was a great clamor. The excitement was very great and broke out in an uproar. The scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees; they were the learned expounders of the law, and would naturally take the lead in such an argument. Hence, they took sides with Paul and defended him against the Sadducees, their enemies. They said: We find no evil in this man. They were ready to take sides with Paul even before they had heard him; this shows their bias and prejudice. A few moments before this they were ready to condemn him, but now they are defending him. They strove’ with the Sadducees. Strove is from the Greek diamachomai, and means to fight it out, to fight back and forth fiercely. In their defense of Paul they said: What does it matter if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel ? They were willing to admit that perhaps a spirit or an angel had spoken to Paul; at least they were willing to admit this in their contention with the Sadducees.
10 And when there arose a great dissension,-The Sanhedrin was composed of about seventy to seventy-two men; we do not know what ratio of them belonged to the Pharisees. It seems that the Sadducees tried to seize and kill Paul, while the Pharisees attempted to rescue and protect him. The council itself became as bad as the mob that had tried to kill Paul the day before. The chief captain, Lysias, knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he was held responsible for him; so he feared that Paul should be torn in pieces by them; therefore, he commanded his soldiers to go down and take Paul from the council and bring him into the castle. Paul was hastily rescued from the Sanhedrin and delivered safely in the castle. Paul handled the situation very tactfully; he had been brought before a prejudiced court; he saw that the court could be divided, and that too over one of the things which he had preached; hence, he turned the two divisions against each other and put them to fighting each other, one party trying to protect him, and the other trying to kill him. The Roman authority then stepped in and brought him to safety.
By action of the Roman governor, Paul was arraigned before the Jewish Sanhedrin. Hardly had he commenced before he was interrupted and insulted. It was a most trying ordeal for the apostle. It is easily conceivable that he would be dejected in the loneliness of the following night. It was then that the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer,” and assured him that in spite of all opposition he would bear witness also at Rome.
So fierce, however, was the opposition to the apostle that certain men vowed to destroy him. Again God overruled and made the fact known to Paul, through his nephew, as the result of which Paul took action which led to his protection and deliverance. Under Roman escort he reached Caesarea, and was presented to the governor, who placed him under guard until his enemies arrived.
Dividing His Persecutors
Act 23:1-11
The behavior of the judge was quite unworthy of his office, but Pauls epithet cannot be defended. The best of men are but men at the best. Paul was thrown off his guard by an insult which touched him to the quick; but nothing could have been finer than the grace and frankness with which he acknowledged his error. The adroit way in which Paul divided the Council probably saved the situation. If the body had been united, Lysias would doubtless have handed Paul over to them to deal with. But the fiery hatred that broke out gave the chief captain grave concern for the safety of this man with citizen-rights.
How timely and precious was the Saviors revelation on the following night! As Pauls heart was sinking amid the solitude of his cell, and he was beginning to think that perhaps the predictions of Agabus and others were about to be fulfilled, he suddenly became aware of the presence of his Lord. Do not trust in your own understanding; let your Master steer your course; and remember that in the darkest hour, as in the brightest, He is beside you. There will be made to you, at the fourth watch of the night, revelations which will reassure your weary and despairing soul that you are not alone.
As this chapter of Acts opens we are reminded that Paul was standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin. There they were, all these religious leaders, the seventy elders of the people of Israel waiting to pass judgment on him. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. That was a tremendous claim to make. Observe, he did not say, since I became a Christian, but he looked back over his whole life-his life as a Jew before he knew Christ, as well as his life as a Christian since he came to know Him.
Why, you say, surely that could not be. How could he have persecuted the church of God with a good conscience? His conscience lacked instruction. There was a time when Paul thought it was the right thing to do to try to destroy Christianity. He said in another place, I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Act 26:9).
People sometimes say, If we follow our consciences, everything will be all right. There are many different ways, but they all lead to Heaven. We can each take our own way as our conscience leads us. But conscience uninstructed by the Word of God may lead people to do the most unscriptural and even evil things. For example, a poor Hindu mother makes her way to the filthy Ganges river. She holds in her arms a darling child. She waits a minute or two, mumbles a prayer and then hurls that little baby into those foul waters. She does that in all good conscience, for she has been told that it is the way to appease her vile gods and to find peace. And so people, led by an uninstructed conscience, may do a great many things that are thoroughly wrong.
The important thing is that we come to Gods own Word and ask What saith the Lord? Find out what the mind of God is, and then act accordingly. You say, I endeavor to keep the ten commandments and to live up to the sermon on the mount, and I think if I do these things it will be all right with me. Have you always kept the ten commandments and have you always lived up to the sermon on the mount? Is it not a fact that you have broken those commandments over and over again? Is it not true that often you fail to fulfill the injunctions of the sermon on the mount? Why then talk about being saved by trying to keep the law or live up to the golden rule or something like that? Where is your good conscience? Already you have violated the law of God; and if you are honest before Him, you will have to confess that you have a bad conscience and it needs to be purged by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So far as Paul knew, he was doing the right thing in persecuting the church of Christ, until he learned the truth, and he learned it in the presence of the Son of God that day on the Damascus road. So he could make this declaration: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
We read then that the high priest, Ananias, forgetting the responsibility that rested on him as the leader of the people to be perfectly just and maintain the law in that high court of the Jews, in his indignation commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then Paul lost his temper. You say, Paul, that holy man of God? Yes, Paul got thoroughly stirred up that day. Paul was filled with anger, and he turned to the high priest and said, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? This was pretty strong language for him to use, and immediately somebody spoke up and said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? In other words, Do you turn to Gods high priest and call him a whited sepulcher? Do you dare use language like that in addressing the high priest?
Oh, how I love the spirit that Paul exhibited next! He did flare up a little and say something he should not have said, yet when it was called to his attention, he immediately condemned himself: I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. And so he used Gods own Word to condemn himself. The next best thing to never having failed at all is to confess it the moment you find out you have done wrong and not to try to justify yourself. So Paul immediately acknowledged that he should not have spoken in that manner to the high priest.
Why did he not know that he was addressing the high priest? Well, you may consider me a bit imaginative about this, but I think Paul had defective vision. Several things in Scripture have led me to that conclusion, and I believe that as he stood there before the council he was not able to recognize those at some distance from him. The high priest may have been standing at the other end of the long room or in the galleries. Therefore he did not realize it was the high priest who had spoken. I think that this visual difficulty is suggested in the letter to the Galatians, Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand (6:11). But as we see, the moment Paul found out his mistake, he calmed himself and was ready to apologize for what he had said.
The Hope of the Resurrection (Act 23:6-11)
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both (Act 23:6-8).
There were two rival sects in Judaism nineteen hundred years ago. The Sadducees were materialists. They did not believe that man existed in another world after death. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were entirely Scriptural and orthodox and believed in the resurrection of the dead. They believed in the conscious existence of the spirit of man between death and resurrection. They also believed in angels created by God and sent forth to be ministers to men.
Paul, seeing that there were men of both parties in that group sitting in judgment on him, took advantage of the situation to get the help of the Pharisees. You might ask, Well, is that fair? I think I may have done the same thing, and so I am not going to condemn him. He knew that the Pharisees confidently believed in the resurrection of the dead, and this gave him an opportunity to testify regarding the hope of the resurrection.
Is there a resurrection from the dead or does death end all? Paul, if they had given him an opportunity to reply, would have said this: I have met the One who died and rose again. I have looked into His face; I saw Him in the Glory; I heard His voice; and I received from Him, the risen Christ, the commission to go out into the world and proclaim the gospel to needy men and women. Everything for me rests on the truth that you Sadducees refuse to believe-the truth of the resurrection of the dead. I stand with the Pharisees today for the hope of the resurrection.
Every Christian can take his stand with the apostle Paul. We believe in the hope of the resurrection, and we rejoice today to know that Christ who died lives again. Has He not said, Because I live, ye shall live also? That is why we join with all Christendom in commemorating the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ every Easter Sunday.
Alas, there are tens of thousands of people who observe Easter yet know nothing of the risen Christ as their own personal Savior. These Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, but they denied the resurrection of the Son of God. You may believe in your mind all the things we have been speaking of, but perhaps you have never rested your soul on the fact that Jesus died and rose again. Remember, that is the fundamental Christian confession, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:9-10).
I have often called attention to the fact that Rom 10:9 commences with uncertainty-that little word If-and ends with glorious certainty- saved. What a wonderful thing it is to be able to say, Thank God, I am sure that my soul is saved. This verse can be best illustrated by the fingers of one hand, thus making it easy to remember. If-there is the thumb. In between the thumb and fourth finger there are three shalts: If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus-there is the first finger; and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead-there is the second finger; thou shalt-the third finger; and now the fourth finger- be saved Now you have the gospel at your very fingertips! Think of it! It is not enough to believe in resurrection; it is not enough to believe in Christs resurrection. What we need to know is that we have trusted the risen Christ as our personal Savior.
When Paul insisted that the reason he was called in question was because of his faith in the hope and resurrection of the dead, there arose a great cry, and the scribes that were of the Pharisees part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. You see, these Pharisees realized that it was best for them not to be too insistent now in persecuting a man who was such a strong defender of the very truth they believed-the truth of resurrection.
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
The blessed, living, loving Savior appeared to His poor, tried, discouraged, imprisoned messenger to encourage his heart as he continued proclaiming the hope of the resurrection!
Gods Overruling Providence (Act 23:12-35)
It is important to remember that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I would emphasize that truth when reading a portion such as this one in Acts. For in this particular instance we have absolutely no mention of God or of the Lord Jesus Christ or of the way of salvation, of redemption by His blood, or of any other great truth of Scripture. We simply have a historical incident, and we might well ask, Of what profit is it to us? But it is part of Holy Scripture, and God by the Spirit caused Luke to write it and preserve it for a definite purpose. I think it brings before us in a very special way Gods providential care of His people.
God is never nearer to His people than when they cannot see His face; He is never closer than when they do not hear His voice; he is never undertaking for them more definitely than at the very times when His own name is not even mentioned. We see this truth in the Old Testament in one little book that is distinctly the record of Gods providential care, the book of Esther. It is a book that brings before us some of the most thrilling experiences in the history of Gods earthly people, the Jews. And yet in that little book we do not have the name of God or any pronoun referring to God; we do not have any reference to any Bible doctrine. We do not even read anything of prayer even though it records a time of tremendous stress. Yet God worked providentially for the deliverance of His people.
Somebody has well said that God is often behind the scenes, but He moves all the scenes that He is behind. It is well for us to remember that. There are times in all our lives when we seem to be forgotten by God. We find it difficult to pray, so we grope in the darkness and we cant understand Gods way with us. But He is always near at hand. He is waiting to undertake for us, and He is watching over us, even when we are so weak and sick that we cannot remember His promises. In the book of Psalms we read, He remembered for them his covenant (106:45, italics added). That is a wonderful thought. When His people forgot, He remembered still and remembered it for them.
Here we find the apostle Paul in a very precarious situation. There is no outward evidence of any manifestation of divine power, and yet God is watching over him through it all. When his enemies demanded his death, the Roman chief captain took him in custody and put him in prison. Now in the opening verses of the section before us we read of a conspiracy entered into by over forty desperate men who evidently hated the gospel of God above everything else in the world. They thought they would be doing God service if they could put Paul to death. We read that they had bound themselves with an oath to carry out this mission. This in itself is suggestive. What a wicked thing it is for men to enter into a curse like this, to bind themselves with an oath to do anything, whether good or evil!
Our Lord Jesus Christ has distinctly forbidden His followers to take oaths of any kind, and yet how recklessly people talk today and how even ungodly men call God to witness as to what they intend to do. I am not speaking merely of profanity, awful as it is. I never can understand how even self-respecting men, not to speak of professing Christians, can stoop to profanity. Yet I fear there are many who actually think it is an evidence of an independent spirit and of manliness to dare to use oaths and profane language. Unconverted men sometimes do it so often that they are not even conscious of it as oath after oath comes from their lips. Gods Word says, Swear not at all; and in the Law we read, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. This refers not only to profanity but also to taking such an oath as these men took, for doubtless they bound themselves in the name of God that they would not eat or drink until they had taken Pauls life.
One wonders what became of the poor wretches when they were not able to carry out their oath. They must have had a terrible time until at last, I suppose, they simply broke down and violated their oath. It generally ends up that way.
Is it necessary to say a word to real Christians as to the wickedness of taking Gods name in vain? One shudders sometimes to hear the language that professing Christians use. The Lord Jesus told us, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is Gods throne: Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool. And yet what a common thing it is today to hear people use the word heaven in a careless, profane way. Do you ever use it that way? How often you will hear a Christian exclaim, Oh heavens! or Good heavens! or something like that. Do you realize that this is just as profane, just as wicked in the sight of God, as if we were to use other vile expressions that ungodly men use? Because you are taking in vain that which speaks of the throne of the Majesty of the universe. You are doing something expressly forbidden by our Lord Jesus who said, Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. When you feel it necessary to add any kind of oath or give strong expression to any statement you make, you are simply departing from the simplicity of speech that should characterize believers. For we read, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
These men had bound themselves with an oath that they would kill Paul. I take it they believed it was their religious duty to get rid of him. When you can get a man to believe that it is his religious duty to do something, he will go to any length to carry it out. Saul of Tarsus must have remembered those days when, under the guise of loyalty to God and church, he sought the lives of those who trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ. So we can be sure that he now would not have any hateful feelings toward these men who were avidly seeking his life.
We find these conspirators coming to the priests and elders of the people in order to have their scheme sanctioned by these religious leaders. They told them of the oath that they had taken, and said in effect, Now wont you act as if you wish to inquire something further concerning him? And we will be waiting nearby, and when they bring him, we will kill him. It was a diabolical plot and one might have thought of Paul as totally helpless. He knew nothing of it, and there seemed to be no way by which he could learn of it, imprisoned as he was. But there was One who knew all about it, and although unseen, He was watching over His servant all the time. When we speak of Gods providential care, we mean Gods unseen interference in the affairs of men.
These men did not realize it, but knowledge of their plot came to Paul in a most interesting way. Paul had a sister living nearby (we might never have known it except for this incident) who had a son, and her son became aware of this plot. Perhaps the conspirators did not think that it was necessary to keep the thing so secret since Paul was shut up in prison. At any rate this lad heard of it, and he went to the prison and asked the guard to take him to see his uncle Paul. When he told Paul what he had learned, the apostle immediately called one of the officials, the centurion, and said, Will you take this man in to see the chief captain? He has something to tell him.
Notice the level-headed way in which Paul acted. He did not say, I am afraid of this, but God is able to protect me. He is still able to work miracles. God does not use miracles when it is not necessary. He would have us use good common sense and not count on His interfering or intervening in some miraculous way.
I remember years ago when I was a Salvation Army officer, we used to say that there were three things that should characterize every saint of God: Now abideth these three: grit, grace, and gumption; but the greatest of these is gumption. Gumption is just good, common, ordinary sense, and I know many Christians who do not use good sense. Some way or other they have an idea they are Gods favored people and it is not necessary to use good judgment and wisdom in regard to the affairs of life; the Lord will undertake for them. If you are hungry and a good dinner is put before you, God is not going to put the food in your mouth in some miraculous way. And so God isnt turning upside down the universe in order to please people who happen to be in difficult circumstances. He expects us to use common sense.
So Paul used his head, and he sent the young man in to the chief captain. When the lad came in to him and gave him his message, The chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me.
The captain must have thought he had a very important prisoner, for see what he did! He called two centurions and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred. That is seventy cavalrymen, two hundred infantrymen, and two hundred spearmen. Just think of it! Four hundred and seventy Roman soldiers, all to protect this Christian servant of God and keep him from his foes who were seeking his life! God saw that he was protected. Did He need the Roman soldiers? No, He could have sent several legions of angels; but God doesnt work in miracles unless it is necessary, and so He used soldiers instead.
The chief captain thought he had a good opportunity to get into the favor of the Governor down at Caesarea, so he wrote a letter which was partly true and partly false. He said, Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him. Well, that is all true, but the next part of the letter was absolutely false: Having understood that he was a Roman. He did not understand anything of the kind. He thought he was an Egyptian. He told Paul that. He said, Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? (21:38) And it was not until they were about to scourge Paul, and Paul said, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? that the chief captain came to his rescue and said, Are you a Roman? And Paul said, Yea.
You see, Claudius Lysias was in a tight fix, for if that lash had come down on the back of Paul, a Roman, and word of it got to the ears of the governor, Claudius Lysias himself would have been arrested for violating the law of the empire. So now he wants to make it appear that it was his zea! for the Roman government that led him to save Pauls life. That was what some people would call a white lie, but every white lie is absolutely black in the sight of God, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, All lies are lies in Gods sight.
Claudius continued, When I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council (which was quite true), Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Farewell. So much for the letter.
And so the soldiers went on with Paul, taking him away at once to be sure that these conspirators did not hurt him. They took him by night as far as Antipatris, and then on the following day the infantrymen returned, but the cavalrymen went on to Caesarea, which was the seat of Roman government for that district. They delivered the epistle to the governor. And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia (Tarsus, where Paul was born, was the chief city in Cilicia), I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come. So now Paul was in the hands of the Roman government, in prison at Caesarea, waiting for his accusers to come down from Jerusalem and plead against him. And he commanded him to be kept in Herods judgment hall.
Now notice the position in which Paul was found. He had gone up to Jerusalem because he loved his Jewish brethren so tenderly, though they did not understand him, and he hoped that God would use him to bring them a knowledge of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead they rejected his message and wanted to put him to death. Now he finds himself in a Roman prison, first in Jerusalem and then in Caesarea. Later we read that from there he was sent over land and sea, still a prisoner, to Rome. We remember that he had written some time before to the church of Rome that he hoped to visit them and he asked them to pray that he might have a prosperous journey. He attains his objective at last, but he reaches Rome in chains.
In all this God was overruling. In all this He was having His own way. It is a wonderful thing to realize that in spite of our mistakes and our blunders we have a blessed Father in Heaven who is working everything out for good. Paul could write, All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Surely these experiences of Gods gracious overruling providence ought to speak comfort to the troubled hearts of many of us. We are conscious, perhaps, of sin and failure in our own lives, or we realize that in our ignorance and shortsightedness we have missed our path. The natural tendency in such instances is to conclude that we can no longer count on Gods loving care, that we have forfeited all right to His fatherly consideration. But it is not so. He loves us still, and He is ever ready to undertake for us when we put all in His hands. He will overrule even our sins and blunders for our blessing and His glory.
He is never more concerned about us than at the very time that all seems to be darkness and confusion. Let us not doubt His love because perplexities abound on every hand. Be it ours to look up in faith and say with Isaiah, I will trust and not be afraid; or with David, What time I am afraid I will trust in thee. He has given a promise that can never be broken: I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Let us then ever remember that His is a love unfailing, a love that no mistakes of ours can alter. And He is working all things according to the counsel of His own will, ever having our blessing in view
66. PAUL AND HIS ENEMIES
Act 23:1-35
It is faith in God’s sovereign providence that enables believers to live in this world of woe with peaceful hearts. “We know,” beyond the least shadow of a doubt, “that all things,” without exception, “work together for good,” eternal, spiritual good, “to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). God is on his throne! Though we cannot always see immediate good in what he does, we know that he is doing good. Therefore, our hearts are kept in peace, even in the midst of troubles, trials, and temptations. One marked feature of the Book of Acts is its evident display of God’s sovereign providence constantly bringing good out of evil for the accomplishment of his own purposes. Acts 23 gives us an instructive example of this fact. Four things are set before us in these thirty-five verses of Inspiration that need to be clearly understood and constantly remembered.
First, THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IS OFFENSIVE TO MEN (Act 23:1-10). We must always carefully avoid offensive attitudes, actions, and words. But we must never expect natural men and women to receive, embrace, or even be tolerant of the gospel of Christ. Natural men are tolerant of every opinion and every religion of man’s making. But the gospel of Christ, the truth of God, the religion of the Bible, the message of free salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, the message of salvation by blood atonement, imputed righteousness, and divine regeneration is offensive to all unregenerate men (1Co 1:18-25). It is offensive because men, by nature, hate God (Rom 8:7). The gospel of Christ exposes man’s depravity, sin, and spiritual impotence (Mat 15:19; Rom 3:9-19; Eph 2:1-4). It nullifies man’s goodness, reveals the evil of man’s righteousness, and denounces man’s religion as a worthless thing (Isa 1:2-15; Amo 5:21-23). The gospel proclaims that salvation is by grace alone, without works (Rom 11:5-6; Eph 2:8-9; 2Ti 1:9). These things the natural man will not tolerate. The terrible uproar at Jerusalem was caused by one thing. Paul had preached God’s sovereign, electing, distinguishing, saving grace and the Jews hated it. Enraged, they cried, “Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live” (Act 22:20-22; Luk 4:25-29). With that as the background, read Paul’s speech before the Jewish Sanhedrin and its results again (Act 23:1-10).
Admire the boldness of God’s servant (Act 23:1-5). The Roman commander brought Paul in and set him before this bloodthirsty mob to be examined by them. But Paul was not intimidated. Even in bonds, he was bold for Christ. He told these men that his life had always been one of integrity, which they all knew to be true (Act 23:1). Throughout his life, Paul was a man of principle. He was saying, “I have always done what I thought was right for the glory of God.” Even before he was converted, he did what he did with zeal for God, though his zeal lacked knowledge (Php 3:6). As soon as Paul said that, Ananias commanded him to be hit in the mouth (Act 23:2). Paul responded in a blaze of anger and indignation, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall” (Act 23:3). He called Ananias a hypocrite (Mat 23:27) because he pretended to judge according to the law, but commanded him to be smitten contrary to the law. NOTE: Self-righteous men who pretend to live by the law and judge others according to the law are hypocrites, for none of them obey the law (1Ti 1:6-7; Gal 6:12-13).
This word from Paul was obviously an inspired word of prophecy. Five years later, this man, Ananias, was stabbed to death. Even so, there is a day coming when God will avenge his elect by smiting their enemies with the rod of his wrath. When Paul was challenged for making this statement about Ananias (Act 23:4), he responded, “I wist not, brethren, that he was God’s high priest; for it is written, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” (Act 23:5; Exo 22:28). No doubt, Paul knew that the Jews regarded Ananias as the high priest. He was not an ignorant man. But he also knew that the Jewish priesthood had degenerated into nothing but a pretentious show, that the typical priesthood of the Old Testament had been fulfilled and thus nullified by Christ, and that there is no high priest before God but Jesus Christ, the sinners’ Substitute (Heb 7:24-25; Heb 10:1-14; 1Jn 2:1-2). Paul’s words in Act 23:5 have a tone of sarcasm in them. It is as though he were saying, “Him, a high priest! If that man was God’s high priest, I would not speak evil of him.”
Then, the Apostle outwitted his enemies (Act 23:6-10). He knew the Pharisees and Sadducees were enemies. The Pharisees were self-righteous legalists; but they did believe the letter of the Scriptures and tenaciously defended the doctrines of immortality and the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were liberals. The only time the two ever got together was to crucify Christ or persecute his people. Knowing their hatred of one another, Paul said, “I am a Pharisee,” and got the two groups fighting one another. He made no compromise. In all points of doctrine wherein the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees, Paul was still a Pharisee. He hoped for and believed in the resurrection of the dead. Once the two groups started fighting, the chief captain sent his soldiers to bring Paul back into the castle, lest he be pulled into pieces by them.
Secondly, while we realize that the gospel of Christ offends men and stirs up their anger, we must never forget that THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS ALWAYS FAITHFUL TO HIS OWN (Act 23:11). After two days of constant harassment, the Lord made himself known to his afflicted servant. Christ never leaves or forsakes his own (Mat 28:20; Php 4:4; Heb 13:5). We are never alone; but we do not always sense our Lord’s presence. So in our darkest hours he appears and makes us to know that he is with us (Dan. 3:35). Perhaps Paul had become despondent. Perhaps he feared he had made a mistake in ignoring the warnings of his friends about coming to Jerusalem (Act 20:16; Act 21:13). Perhaps he feared he might never reach Rome. So, “The Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness of me also at Rome” (Psa 42:11; Isa 41:10; Isa 43:1-5; Isa 46:4).
Thirdly, read Act 23:12-35 and understand that OUR GOD WISELY AND SOVEREIGNLY RULES ALL THE EVENTS OF PROVIDENCE FOR GOOD. God rules all things absolutely for the eternal good of his elect and the accomplishment of his eternal purpose, for the glory of his own great name (Psa 76:10; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6; Rom 8:28-30; Rom 11:36). It was the wrath of wicked men that carried Paul to Caesarea and ultimately to Rome. God took the evil conspiracy of a band of Jewish zealots (terrorists) and brought good out of it. Because they plotted to kill Paul, God moved a pagan Roman commander to send Paul on his way under the protection of 470 soldiers! When he arrived at Caesarea and was brought before Felix, the governor, Felix said, “I will hear thee when thine accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall” (Act 23:35).
Fourthly, it is important for us to observe the fact that THE SAINTS OF GOD IN THIS WORLD ARE A HARMLESS AND BLAMELESS PEOPLE (Act 23:29). The Jews sought every way imaginable to bring an accusation against Paul. But they found none. They hated him. They wanted to kill him. But he was a man of blameless reputation. His life adorned his doctrine. May the same be true of us (Tit 2:10; Php 2:14-16). If we faithfully confess Christ before men, we will meet with opposition, as Paul did. When men oppose us, the Lord will stand by us, as he stood by Paul. Let us confidently trust our heavenly Father’s wise and good providence and seek, for the glory of his name, to live blamelessly before men.
earnestly: Act 23:6, Act 6:15, Act 22:5, Pro 28:1
Men: Act 22:1
I have: Act 24:16, 1Co 4:4, 2Co 1:12, 2Co 4:2, 2Ti 1:3, Heb 13:18, 1Pe 3:16
Reciprocal: Gen 17:1 – walk Isa 58:4 – and to smite Jer 37:18 – General Mat 10:17 – for Mar 13:9 – take Luk 1:6 – walking Act 1:16 – Men Act 5:27 – set Act 25:8 – Neither Act 28:17 – though Rom 2:15 – their conscience Gal 2:11 – because 1Ti 1:5 – a good
AS WE OPEN this chapter, we find Paul standing before this august body, and we might have expected him to give the most striking and convincing address of his life. In result however there was a minimum of testimony and a maximum of confusion. Pauls opening remark was bitterly resented, though we can see that it was true. A good conscience is acquired and maintained as we sincerely and rigidly carry out all that conscience directs. The zealot with unenlightened or perverted conscience does the most outrageous things in order to preserve his good conscience. Thus had
Paul acted in his unconverted days, and since his conversion he had with sincerity observed the warnings of his conscience, now enlightened and rectified. How clearly this shows us that conscience is of itself no safe guide: it must be enlightened by the Word of God. Its value depends entirely upon the measure in which it is controlled by the Word.
Angry at this opening statement, the high priest ordered that Paul should be smitten on the mouth, thus breaking the law which stipulated that an offender should only be beaten after a proper trial, and then only in a proper way (Deu 25:1-3). This manifest injustice moved Paul to a sharp retort; most appropriate, yet not admissible as addressed to the high priest. The council having been summoned in this hurried and informal way, probably there was nothing in his attire to distinguish him; yet, when the error was pointed out, Paul at once acknowledged his fault and quoted the passage which forbade what he had done. He was unable to ask with all assurance, Which of you convinceth me of sin? as his Lord had done.
There immediately followed an exceedingly astute move on Pauls part. He presented himself as a Pharisee, and as being called in question concerning the hope of resurrection. Without a doubt he was a Pharisee by birth and early training, and without a doubt resurrection lies at the very foundation of the Gospel. His cry had the effect he anticipated. It rallied the Pharisees to his aid, while violently antagonizing the Sadducees. They were all true party men, viewing everything from a party standpoint. Assuming him to be of their party, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same kind of thing is very common today, and Christians are not immune from it; so let us accept the warning which is conveyed to us here.
All through the Acts the Sadducean party appear as the chief opponents of the Gospel. Their materialistic outlook, denying the resurrection, accounted for this. Here we have our last glimpse of them as they furiously protest against the sudden change of front with the Pharisees, and use such physical vigour that Paul might have been pulled in pieces. Their violence defeated their purpose, for it forced the chief captain to intervene, and Paul was for the second time rescued from the hands of his own people.
How very beautiful verse Act 23:11 is! We are not told anything as to Pauls feelings, but the Lords message to him of good cheer certainly infers that he was depressed. We cannot help thinking that the whole of this
Jerusalem episode had fallen below the high standard that had characterised all his earlier service; yet he certainly had testified of his Lord. His gracious Master fixed upon that fact, acknowledged it, and told him he was yet to bear witness in Rome-Jerusalem the religious centre, Rome the imperial and governmental centre of the earth of those days. What a refreshment for Pauls spirit!
The next day there was hatched the conspiracy on the part of more than forty men to kill Paul. The nature of the curse under which they bound themselves testifies to the ferocity of their hatred, so it looks as if they were of the Sadducean party who had been baulked of their prey the day before. The chief priests also were of that party, and so were nothing loth to implicate themselves in the business. They were to pretend that they wished to examine him further, and the forty men were ready to kill him.
Again we find the hand of God frustrating their devices. The story-as ever in Scripture-is told with brevity and restraint. We discover that Paul had a sister and a nephew in Jerusalem, but how the young man got information of the plot we are not told. God saw however that it reached his ears, though only concocted a few hours before, and also gave him the courage to reveal it. That he had such easy access to his uncle, and that Pauls request for his nephew to have access to the chief captain should have met with so courteous a response, we trace to Gods overruling; though very probably the outrageous behaviour of the Jews had provoked a reaction in the mind of the chief captain in favour of Paul. In result he not only listened to the young man but took him at his word without any hesitation, and immediately took steps to frustrate the plot.
The remainder of the chapter gives us a glimpse of the efficiency that marked the Roman military system. The chief captain acted with the utmost promptness in his decision to remit Paul to the civil governor at Caesarea. He took care also to run no risks. He knew the vindictive fury of the Jews when matters of a religious sort were at stake; so he did not make the common mistake of underestimating the danger. The force that took charge of Paul must have numbered practically five hundred men, a ratio of twelve to one against would-be assassins. Every consideration was given to the prisoner, even to the extent of providing beasts for him to ride.
1
Act 23:1. No specific charge had been made against Paul, hence he had none to deny. It was appropriate, therefore, for him to make a statement to the effect that he was not conscious of any wrong ever having been committed. Paul had caused Christians to be slain and had committed general persecution against the church, yet his good conscience included that time. This proves that a man can be conscientious in doing wrong, which also gives us the conclusion that a good conscience alone will not. justify one before God.
St. Paul brought before the Sanhedrim by the Roman Officials in JerusalemHe defends himself before the Great Council, 1-10.
Act 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council. The Greek word , rendered earnestly beholding, is used by the apostle on more than one solemn occasion, and describes the strained earnest gaze with which he endeavours to make up for that weakness of sight of which mention has already been made. It has also been suggested as more than probable that this dimness of vision, accompanied no doubt often with grievous pain, was occasioned by the glory of the Damascus vision, and most likely was the celebrated thorn in the flesh alluded to in such touching language in 2Co 12:7-9. Still, though the eyesight was dim, we do not, as will be seen, accept the theory that he could not discern whether the one speaking to him was the high priest. The very word here used seems to imply the contrary. Once more, after all those many years, Paul was present at a meeting of that august assembly of which he once was most likely a member, certainly was a confidential and trusted official. With strained fixed gaze he looked round on that once familiar scene, on some old and once-loved faces, all now looking on him with the deepest hate and aversion. He could not fail to distinguish the high priest, seeing he noticed the several party groups (Act 23:6) into which the Sanhedrim was divided.
Said, Men and brethren. Rendered simply, said, Brethren. This time he omits the words and fathers, with which he prefaced his address on the steps of Antonia, to the multitude crowding in the temple area below him. Then it was a more impassioned address, and he appealed especially to the elders present; now, standing formally arraigned before the Sanhedrim, he remembers his ancient position among them,a position he is conscious he has surely, by his long devotion to his Master, never forfeited. So he begins as an equal speaking to equals; a former Sanhedrist to his ancient colleagues: Brothers!
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Well paraphrased by I have lived as a true and loyal Jew, for the service and glory of God, from my youth up until now. Paul more than once refers in a similar way to conscience. So in 2Ti 1:3, he says he had all his life served God with a pure conscience; and again, in 1Ti 1:5, he writes how a good conscience was the end of the commandment. See, too, Rom 2:15. Paul teaches us that a man must never act against the dictates of his conscience, though, however, he plainly demonstrates from his own early experience that conscience is by no means an infallible guide; it requires light from on high. He shows us again, by his own example, from what good conscience before God proceeds: 1. From true faith in Christ, by which the remission of sins is obtained. 2. From the assurance of Divine grace. 3. From the faithful performance of the duties of our calling.
The words until this day cover all his preceding life. He felt he had acted conscientiously before the Damascene vision, according to the dim light he then possessed; and after that solemn meeting with the Lord Jesus by the way, he had changed his life and conversation, according to the dictates of his conscience, illuminated by the ever presence of the Holy Spirit sent by his Master.
Here we have observable the apostle’s sober and ingenuous profession and protestation, Ananias’s insolent and injurious injunction, St. Paul’s zealous answer and contestation.
Observe, 1. The apostle’s sober and ingenuous profession and protestation, ver. 1. I have lived in all good conscience unto this day: that is, during his continuance in the Jewish religion, and since his conversion to the Christian religion, he had walked uprightly, and according to his knowledge, and the light of his conscience.
But had Paul a good conscience when he persecuted the Christians?
Answ. He went according to his conscience when he persecuted: he verily thought he did God service in so doing, and it was not any selfish end or sinister design he propounded to himself, but zeal for his religion provoked him to persecution, Php 3:6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church. It is certainly a man’s duty to follow his conscience; but then it is as much his duty to inform his conscience, as it is to follow it; I have lived in all good conscience until this day.
Here note, The apostle sets forth the goodness of his conscience; these four ways.
1. From the goodness of his conversation: I have lived. A good conversation is the best evidence of a good conscience. God doth not measure men’s sincerity by the tides of their affections, but by the constant bent of their resolutions, and the general course and tenor of their conversations. Every man’s conscience is as his life is.
2. From the generality of his care and obedience: I have lived in all good conscience: if it be not a conscience all good, it is no good conscience at all. Herod had some good conscience, he did many things; but the apostle went farther, he lived not in some, but in all good conscience.
3. The apostle sets forth the goodness of his conscience from the integrity of it towards God: I have lived in all good conscience before God. Many a man’s conscience passeth for a good conscience before men, and perhaps before himself, which yet are not good before God, the judge of conscience.
4. From his continuance and constancy, Until this day; I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.It is not sufficient to begin a good life, and to have a good conscience; but we must keep it too, and that all our days, even to our last day.
Happy man! that can truly say at his dying day, I have lived in all good conscience until this day.
Observe, 2. As the apostle’s solemn protestation, so the high-priest’s injurious injunction: Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
Here note, What is the reward and portion of a good conscience from the world: to be smitten either on the mouth, or with the mouth; either with the fist, or with the tongue. There is nothing so enrages men of wicked consciences, as the profession and practice of a good conscience doth: but better ten blows on the face than one on the heart; better a thousand blows for a good conscience, than one from it.
Observe, 3. St. Paul’s zealous answer and contestation, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.
Where note, 1. That although the apostle doth not smite again as he was smitten, though he did not smite Ananias on the cheek, as he smote him on the mouth, yet he gives him a check and sharp reproof for his violence and injustice.
Thence learn, That Christian patience, though it binds a man’s hands, yet it doth not always bind his tongue; though it lays a law upon a man to forbear violence, yet it lays not a law upon him to enjoin him silence. St. Paul though he did not strike, yet durst speak; though he held his hands, yet he did not hold his peace. Though religion pinions a man’s arms from striking, yet it doth not seal up a man’s lips from speaking; but we may declare both our own innocency, and others’ injustice.
Note, 2. St. Paul doth not say, God shall judge thee: or God shall plague thee; but God shall smite thee: denoting, that as there is always equity, so sometimes a retaliation in the executions of divine justice, or a recompensing like for like. God sometimes returns smiting for smiting, so that the sinner is forced to cry out, As I have done, so God hath requited me.
God punishes sometimes in the same kind, sometimes in the same manner, sometimes in the same place; that sinners are forced to cry out, Righteous art thou, O Lord! and just are thy judgments!
Paul’s Second Defense
As he stood before the council, or Sanhedrin, Paul told them he had lived in good until that very time (Compare 1Co 4:4 ; 2Ti 1:3 ). At this, Ananias commanded the man next to Paul to strike him, which was a violation of their law. Paul, likely with the voice of prophecy, told Ananias that God would strike him because he sat to judge the apostle by the law but violated it by having a man struck before he had been tried and found guilty ( Deu 25:1-2 ). Coffman says Ananias was murdered by his own people just a few years later at the beginning of the Jewish war. Those standing by asked Paul if he was reviling the high priest, who, of course, was one with certain authority. It might seem improbable that the apostle could fail to recognize the high priest. However, since the Sanhedrin was not in formal assembly, Ananias may not have had on official dress. Further, Ananias may not have been the actual high priest at that time, since the title was also used for former high priests and those who were merely from the family out of which he was chosen. Once the apostle knew who he spoke against, he immediately apologized noting that it was against the law to speak against a ruler of God’s people ( Act 23:1-5 ; Exo 22:28 ).
When Paul saw the council was comprised of both Pharisees and Sadducees, he began his defense by saying he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee and brought up on charges because of his belief in the resurrection of the dead. Actually, this was the center piece of the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His statement immediately created a division between the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees, who did not. Some of the scribes who were Pharisees actually stood up and said they could not find any fault in Paul, even wondering if the apostle had been spoken to by a spirit or an angel. The dissention between the two groups was so great that the chief captain had Paul withdrawn to the castle, afraid he would be torn apart by them ( Act 23:6-10 ).
Act 23:1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God The Searcher of hearts; until this day Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him At the bar; to smite him on the mouth For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, , is about to smite thee, thou whited wall Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou Gods high-priest Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren , I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananiass dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.
XXIII: 1, 2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth. No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating.
Acts Chapter 23
Paul addresses the council with the gravity and dignity of an upright man accustomed to walk with God. It is not a testimony borne to them for their good; but the appeal of a good conscience to their consciences, if they had any. The immediate answer is an outrage on the part of the judge or chief of the council. Paul, roused by this procedure, denounces judgment on him from God; but, warned that he was the high priest (who was not so clothed as to be recognised), he excuses himself by his ignorance of the fact, quoting the formal prohibition of the law to speak evil of the ruler of the people. All this was right and in place with regard to men; but the Holy Ghost could not say, I wist not. It is not the activity of the Spirit performing the work of grace and of testimony. But it is the means of the final judgment of God upon the people. It is in this character, as regards the Jews, that Paul appears here. Paul makes a much better appearance than his judges, who thoroughly disgrace themselves and manifest their dreadful condition; but he does not appear for God before them. Afterwards he avails himself of the different parties of which the council were composed to throw complete disorder into it, by declaring himself to be a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and called in question for a dogma of that sect. This was true; but it was below the height of his own word, that which was gain I counted loss for Christs sake. The Jews however fully manifest themselves. That which Paul said raises a tumult, and the chief captain takes him from among them. God has all things at His disposal. A nephew of Pauls, never mentioned elsewhere, hears of an ambush laid for him and warns him of it. Paul sends him to the chief captain, who expedites the departure of Paul under a guard to Caesarea. God watched over him, but all is on the level of human and providential ways. There is not the angel as in Peters case, nor the earthquake as at Philippi. We are sensibly on different ground.
THE HIGH PRIEST
1-6. Paul hears the order to smite him on the mouth, but did not know who spake. When it turned out to be the high priest, he apologized. In the gospel dispensation (1 Peter 2), we see the priesthood is transferred to the membership, justification making you a priest, and sanctification a high priest, corresponding to the two courts of the temple in the sanctum and the sanctum sanctorum. The high priest first offered the sacrifice in the sight of the people; then he went into the Holy of Holies and interceded for them, after coming out and blessing them. So our great High Priest first offered His sacrifice on Calvary, in presence of the people; then He went up to heaven to intercede. Finally, He will come back to bless the people in the glorious millennial theocracy.
PAUL APPEALS TO THE PHARISEES
The Sadducees were rationalistic infidels, i. e., high critics. While the Pharisees were orthodox, they were spiritually dead. Pursuant to the Pauline policy, All things to all men, he here very shrewdly avails himself of the sympathy and co-operation of the Pharisees, beautifully illustrating to us that amiable and invaluable gift of the Spirit denominated wisdom (1Co 12:8). God expects us to use the intelligence He has given us.
Act 23:2. Smite him on the mouth. Ananias the highpriest commanded this, when he heard Paul profess a good conscience, and determined to persevere in preaching Christ. So Ahab commanded Micaiah to be smitten, and so Pashur smote Jeremiah.
Act 23:5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the highpriest. Doubts are entertained whether may not designate the sagan or second priest; if so, Josephus and St. Luke may be easily reconciled. Be that as it may, Paul had a long time been away from Jerusalem; and rulers on this hasty occasion did not sit in form and appear in the costume of office. However, what he said was prophetic. God smote this unworthy man first, and all the others by the Romans when Jerusalem was taken. Josephus reports, in his Antiquities of the jews, Act 20:5, that Ananias the highpriest was sent in chains to Rome, to give an account to Csar for his maladministration. Perhaps Paul, when he called the highpriest a whited wall, had our Saviours words of painted sepulchres in his eye. Prophets and martyrs, full of the Holy Ghost, use awful words to the wicked. 2Ki 21:17; 2Ki 21:22. Act 7:51-52. Perhaps he was the Ananias killed in the insurrection five years after by his own son.
Act 23:7. There arose a dissension between the pharisees and the sadducees; the old dissension, of which we have before spoken. Deu 31:16. Mat 22:23. This contest led to open outrage; and the commandant most humanely hurried away Paul, lest he should be torn to pieces.
Act 23:8. The sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit. This sect claimed Sadoc for their founder, as also did the Baithusians; but it is doubted whether Sadoc himself went quite so far. Perhaps he only objected to serve God from motives of self-love, the rewards of the life to come; or to serve him with the fears and terrors of a future world. How preposterous for this sect to receive the five books of Moses, and reject the prophets. Is not the Genesis built on the belief of a world of spirits? Ye shall be as gods, or as angels in the likeness of God.
Gen 3:5; Gen 5:1. Is not the whole history of Abraham, who looked for a better country, coincident with this belief? Is not the strong command of Joseph concerning his bones, and all other funeral honours founded on the hope of the resurrection? What else was the faith of Jacob, who ascribed his whole preservation to the good angel of the Lord that had redeemed him from all evil and mischief? What books could be stronger against them than the Pentateuch of Moses? Deu 31:16.
Act 23:11. The night following the Lord stood by him, supporting and comforting him; for he must go as a state prisoner, and bear witness of him at Rome. Here the Lord Christ was with his servant in the fiery trial. The bar of Csar was his only retreat from foes so powerful; and Rome was the city which Paul had long desired to see.
Act 23:14. They came to the chief priests and elders, to display their zeal, that the curse should rest upon them, (and that curse was death, as when Saul would have killed Jonathan for tasting honey) if they either ate or drank till they had killed Paul. The council at once approved, as though their zeal had been hallowed like the zeal of Phinehas, who slew Zimri the prince, and Cozbi his harlot. Numbers 25. Oh tempora: oh mores! Those more than forty assassins might next have tried their skill against the council; for every man who consents to blood, is guilty of blood. See on Act 21:37.
Act 23:15. And we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him; but they had not asked leave of God. In Dan 6:24 it is said, the lions brake their bones, or ever they came to the bottom of the den. The French or, now, and desormais, hereafter, as the Latin hora, equally apply to time. We formerly said, ere ever, and before ever; all these phrases are now antiquated.
Act 23:26. Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix. What honour in this Roman; what prudence in keeping peace in the city; what attestations of Pauls innocence he has done nothing worthy of bonds or of death. He sent him as a Roman subject, and a free man, to be judged at Csars bar. God can turn the heart of kings as the rivers of the south, for the salvation of his people.
Act 22:30 to Act 23:10. Paul Before the Sanhedrin.This is a difficult section, and does not advance the action. Unless the proceedings took place in Greek, the tribune would scarcely secure his object of learning the charge against Paul; it is strange that he should have called a meeting of the Sanhedrin for this purpose, which could be reached otherwise. Paul is released from his chains and faces the court without them, and without the presence of military. He begins a speech which was to explain his position, but is rudely interrupted; he has not been asked to speak, and might be regarded as treating the court without respect. He retorts with applying an abusive epithet to the High Priest who had ordered the interruption. The and before his question (Act 23:3 b) expresses surprise or indignation. Ananias, son of Nedebus, was High Priest from about A.D. 47; Paul might not have seen him before, but he was presiding at the meeting, judging him, Paul says. There is a screw loose in the narrative, and the appeal (Act 22:5) to Exo 22:28 does not make it tight. Paul, however, is not silenced; he calls out aloud the subject of difference between the two great parties, which they no doubt ignored at their meetings, thus playing the enfant terrible among those grave and reverend men. It is on account of the hope and the resurrection of the dead that he is being judged, he says. He was not being judged at all (Act 22:30), and if he was, the charge against him was not that he believed in the Resurrection, but that he subverted the authority of Moses among the Jews of the Dispersion (Act 21:21). The diversion, however, is very successful; the meeting is at once in an uproar. Some of the Pharisees actually defend Paul; they find the story he tells (ch. 22) of his vision credible. He may have been visited by a spirit or an angel, and thenthe conclusion is left to be imagined. The tribune fears that in spite of this Paul will be torn in pieces; the military are to come and remove him. The author does not state his conclusion as to the charge here, but see Act 22:29.
In this hearing the chief captain did not take the place of an adjudicator, nor was there any other judicial authority present to keep order. Paul then takes advantage of the occasion to speak earnestly to the council, to tell them he had lived in all good conscience before God until that day. No doubt this was true, but he was on the defensive rather than bearing witness to the Lord Jesus.
Neither the high priest nor the council had anything to say in regard to a concrete accusation against him. But the high priest commanded others to strike Paul on the mouth. This was so blatantly unjust that Paul did not restrain himself from speaking unadvisedly with his lips, calling the high priest a whited wall and telling him that God would smite him. Otherwise his words were most telling, “sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”
Challenged for having spoken as he did to “God’s high priest,” he had to withdraw his words, saying he had not known the man was high priest, for the law had said, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” It can hardly be honestly said that Ananias was God’s high priest, for he had been appointed by the Romans. Yet, Paul recognized his place of rule.
Paul however did not wait passively for any charges to be brought, but seeing that both Pharisees and Sadducees were present, he made the bold assertion, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” No doubt this was an astute move, for it achieved the result Paul desired of causing division among his enemies, for the doctrine of resurrection was one as to which Pharisees and Sadducees opposed each other. Of course Paul still fully believed as the Pharisees did in regard to resurrection: in fact he went further than they, for he knew Christ as raised from among the dead. Actually, while he had been raised a Pharisee, yet he was no longer of the sect of the Pharisees: he was a Christian.
The Pharisees were influenced by his words to relax their enmity, while the Sadducees were all the more determined in their opposition, being resentful even of the suggestion of an angel or spirit speaking to Paul, for they denied their existence. Paul then became the center of conflict between them, and the chief captain had to command his soldiers to rescue him from the violence of their contention.
The night following Paul’s imprisonment it seems likely that he was feeling discouraged. Did he not reflect on the fact that he had come to Jerusalem in spite of God’s warning him not to, the resulting refusal of the Jews to listen to him, then his mistake in the way he answered the high priest, and finally his calling himself a Pharisee rather than bearing witness of Christ? All this stemmed from his coming to a place God had not sent him. How he needed the merciful help of his Lord now! Wonderful is the grace of the heart of the Lord Jesus in His standing by Paul that night, to encourage him: “Be of good cheer, Paul.” He credits him too with having borne witness to Him in Jerusalem, as he did from the stairs of the castle, and tells him he will do so in Rome also. This did not take place for over two years, however (ch.24:27). The Lord will not forsake His servant, whatever may be the sadness of his failure which was mixed with his fervent devotedness to his Master.
The hostility of the Jews had now been stirred to a fever pitch. Likely it was men of the Sadducees who bound themselves under a curse to eat nothing till they had killed Paul. But the Lord had settled that matter before: He had told Paul he would bear witness of Him at Rome! In spite of the curse, one is doubtful that those men (over forty of them) died of starvation! But their terroristic plan did not work. It was a bold plot to take the chief captain off guard, having him in good faith bring Paul to the Jewish council again as though they desired to enquire more perfectly of him, they being ready to kill him on the way. Their murdering him at the time he was a prisoner of the Roman guard would be a most serious criminal offence, but they evidently thought that their large number could accomplish it and escape the consequences.
The Lord had His own way of thwarting this. Whatever attitude Paul’s sister had toward him, at least her son had right feelings when he heard of this plot, for of course many of the Jews would know of it. He visited Paul in the prison and warned him of it. This led to the chief captain’s learning of it from the young man, who was warned to keep completely silent about his having disclosed this.
The chief captain wisely decided, as God had decided long before, that Jerusalem was no place for Paul. He had come there of his own volition, but was to be carried out as a prisoner — not to die there, as he had expressed himself willing to (Ch.21:13). It seems astonishing that the chief captain ordered so large a guard for Paul in sending him to Caesarea, — two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen. This was a virtual army prepared to leave at the third hour of the night (9.00 p.m.). Such activity would certainly awaken the attention of the people, though they may have remained ignorant of the reason for it.
Paul had come from Caesarea on foot, but has the honor of riding back, willingly or not. The chief captain, Claudius Lysias, sent with the company a letter to Felix the governor, explaining the reason for his sending Paul. He knew the Jews had been on the verge of killing Paul, not taking him to be judged by their law, as Tertullus later stated (Ch.24:6). It had required an army to rescue him. When later he says he brought Paul face to face with the Jewish council, he perceived that their only accusation had to do with the Jewish religious law, but of no such importance as to call for a sentence of death or even of imprisonment.
Yet he adds that he had heard the Jews were plotting to kill Paul while in custody, and therefore was sending Paul to Felix, while telling his accusers that they could go to Caesarea also to accuse Paul before Felix.
The soldiers went as far as Antipatris, not so far distant from Caesarea, then left the horsemen to take Paul to Caesarea, while they returned to Jerusalem. The horsemen in due course delivered Paul to Felix along with the letter from Lysias. Paul was then kept in Herod’s judgment hall until his accusers should come to face him at the court of Felix. Thus the project was completed without the knowledge of the men who had plotted Paul’s death, and they would have an unwelcome surprise in hearing that their enemy was no longer in Jerusalem.
Verse 1
Earnestly beholding; looking around upon the assembly with an air of confidence and conscious innocence.
23:1 And {1} Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
(1) Paul, against the false accusations of his enemies, displays a clear conscience, for proof of which he repeats the whole course of his life.
Evidently Paul intended to give his testimony again to the Sanhedrin. He addressed this body using the formal address common among Jews (lit. "Men brothers," Gr. Andres adelphoi). He identified himself as a Jew since his loyalty to Judaism was in question.
Paul frequently claimed to have lived with a clear conscience before God (cf. Act 20:18-21; Act 20:26-27; Act 24:16; Rom 15:19; Rom 15:23; Php 3:6; 2Ti 4:7). Paul referred to the conscience about 23 times in his epistles. Here this claim meant that he believed that nothing he had done, which he was about to relate, was contrary to the will of God contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically his Christian beliefs and conduct did not compromise his Jewish heritage.
"He was not, of course, claiming sinlessness, nor was he referring to the inner spiritual conflicts of Romans 7. The reference was to the externals of his life, and the blamelessness of his conduct as measured by the demands of the Law (cf. Php 3:4-6)." [Note: Kent, p. 168, footnote 19.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
But comes to light beneath the sun,”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)