Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPaul Kretzmann Commentary - Acts 23:1 - 23:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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.