Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 22:30 - 23:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Act_22:30– Act_23:11
[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, ìÝëëåé ] 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 God’s high priest? 5Then said Paul [And ( ôå ) Paul said], I wist [knew] not, brethren, that he was [is, ἐóôὶí ] 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 Pharisees]: 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, ôïῦôï ], there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, [and] neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess 9 both. 9And [But] there arose a great cry: and the scribes 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?]. 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]:for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
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. Ἀôåíßóáò , i.e., he steadfastly surveyed the assembly before him, with a calm and undaunted spirit. The address, ἄíäñ . ἀäåëöïé , without ðáôÝñåò (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; ðÜóῃ óõíåéäÞóåé ἀãáèῇ , in every respect, in every case, with a good conscience. Ðïëéôåýïìáé (which is equivalent to rempublicam gero, fungor magistratu in repub.) here implies: “I have performed my office with a good conscience ôῷ èåῷ ;” 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 ðïëéôåýïìáé 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 Nebedæus, 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 (Realwört.), 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 priest—a fact indicated by the designation ὁ ἀñ÷éåñåὺò , Act_23:2; Act_23:4.
b. Commanded them that stood by him, etc.—[ Ôïῖò ðáñåóô . áὐôῷ , those who stood at his (the high priest’s) side—servants, 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 ôýðôåéí , 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 ôýðôåéí óὲ ìåëëåé , 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 ôïῖ÷å êåêïíéáìÝíå 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. Êáὶ óý , 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. [“ ÊÜèῃ , for êÜèçóáé ” (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” ( ὄôé ἐóôὶí ἀñ÷ .), in others “I knew not” ( ïὐê ᾔäåéí ), 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 ïὐê ᾔäåéí : ‘I do not admit that it is so’ (Augustine), or “I could not know—could 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 hæc 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 words—for 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 Paul’s 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 points—the 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 revered—but without retracting his words [“The quotation—is 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 cause—the cause of Christian truth—was that of openly declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and that his faith was allied to the Pharisaic doctrine. [“Paul’s 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 ðåñὶ ἐëðßäïò êáὶ ἀíáóôÜóåùò íåêñῶí , 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 redemption—of 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 ἐëðὶò , 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 ( ἐó÷ßóèç ), so that the Pharisees and the Sadducees contended with each other. The contention grew louder and more violent ( êñáõãὴ ìåãÜëç , Act_23:9; ðïëëÞ óôÜóéò , 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 ìçäὲ — ìÞôå should be retained, for critical reasons. [But see note 3, appended to the text, above.—Tr.]. The former, ìçäὲ , introduces a second class of conceptions, generically different from the preceding ( ἀíÜóôáóéí ); the latter, ìÞôå , connects with it objects that are similar, in so far as ðíåῦìá , an incorporeal spirit, and ἄããåëïò are, essentially, homogeneous). The Pharisees, on the contrary, confess both. ( Ἀìöüôåñá , 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 ìçäὲ — ìÞôå in this passage, see Winer: Gram. N. T. § 55. 6.—Alford, who differs from Lechler, says: “The former ìÞôå has been altered to ìçäὲ to suit ôὰ ἀìöüôåñá , because with ἀíáóô . ìÞôå ἄãã . ìÞôå ðí . three things are mentioned;—whereas, if ìçäÝ is read, the two last are coupled, and form only one. But ôὰ ἀìö . 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: åἰ - - ἄããåëïò , terminates abruptly, [ ìὴ èåïìá÷ῶìåí 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 ìὴ èåïì . 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 Paul’s 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 ( äéáóðáóèῇ 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 ( óôñÜôåõìá ) 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.— Åἰò ἹåñïõóáëÞì — åἰò ̔ Ñþìçí , i.e., he was directed to go to both cities, and address his testimony to ( åἰò ) both—the one being the religious, the other, the political capital of the world, at that time.
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 author’s Exeg. notes, and Doct. views, Act_17:16-34.—Tr.]; he selects those principles which are allied to Christianity—Israel’s 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, conscientiæ fuerat obsecutus, neque quicquam commiserat, cur in foro externo reus fieret.] Nunc, quum bona vetera non abjecit, sed meliora accepit, ex præsenti 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).
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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 Christ—the 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.]. Some—says 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 Paul’s 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.
Paul’s 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 Luther’s 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 Paul’s good conscience (Act_23:1); (b) the gentle reply of Jesus (Joh_18:23), is more heavenly than Paul’s 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:
Act_22:30. (Acts 22). [D. is deficient from ὁé ìÝëëïíôåò , Act_22:29, to the end of the book.—Tr.] Ἀðὸ ôῶí äåóìῶí , after ἔëõóåí áὐôὸí [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 óõíåëèåῖí , whereas the others [G. H.] have the reading ἐëèåῖí [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, ὅëïí before ôὸ óõíÝä ., of text. rec., with G. H., is changed into ðᾶí by recent editors, on the authority of A. B. C. E., Cod. Sin., Vulg. (omne).— Áὐôῶí , after óõíÝä ., of text. rec. with G. H., is dropped by the same, on the same authority.—Tr.]
Ch. 23, Act_23:6. The reading, õἱὸò Öáñéóáßùí , 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.], Öáñéóáßïõ , 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.]
Act_23:8. [The text. rec. reads: ìçäὲ ἄããåëïí , ìÞôå ðíåῦìá . with G. H., some minuscules and fathers; Lach., Tisch., and Alf., change ìçäὲ , before ἄãã . into ìÞôå , on the authority of A. B. C. E (also Cod. Sin.)., some minuscules, etc. See the Exeg. note on the passage.—Tr.]
Act_23:9. a. The reading of the two latest uncial manuscripts, G. H., and of five minuscules, namely, ãñáììáôåῖò , without the article, seems to be genuine. Two uncial manuscripts [B. C (also Cod. Sin.).] read: ôéíåò ôῶí ãñáììáôÝùí ; in two others [A. E., and Vulg. (quidam Pharisæorum)] the reading is: ôéíåò ôῶí Öáñéóáßùí . All such alterations were probably intended to explain or improve the original words [which, according to Lechler’s translation, he assumes to have been those found in text. rec., excepting ïἱ , which occurs in none of the uncials. This is the reading preferred by Tisch.; Lach. reads simply: ôéíὲò ôῶí Öáñ . Alf. makes no change in the text rec. Meyer concludes with Born. that the genuine reading is probably the following: ôéíὲò ô . ãñáììáôÝùí ôïõ ìÝñ . ôῶí Öáñ .—Tr.]
Act_23:9. b. The concluding words: ìὴ èåïìá÷ῶìåí , after ἄããåëïò , [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.
Act_23:11. Ðáῦëå after èÜñóåé , 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.]