Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: December 24
Today is: Wednesday, April 24th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of December: (Show All Months)
Act_22:30 to Act_23:11
When Paul entered the assembly, and had taken his place at the bar, he cast a steadfast and scrutinizing glance around upon its members—noting the changes that had taken place since, now nearly twenty years ago, he had received from it his memorable commission to Damascus—recognizing many faces with which he was familiar, though somewhat changed by lapse of years; and gathering from what he observed intimations for his own defence. It was but for a moment; and then he began—“Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day.” At the first view, we, who are acquainted with so much of his course of life, are inclined cordially to endorse this testimony. But, at the second thought, a question arises whether he means this to apply to the whole of his life, or only to that portion of it since his conversion. Some have taken the latter alternative, in order to avoid an apparent difficulty; but the tone of the statement, and the circumstances which surround it, will not permit us to consent to this limitation. The period which his assertion covers must, therefore, include that in which he was one of the greatest enemies of the church of Christ, persecuting it and wasting it “beyond measure” (to use his own expression), and with unrelenting barbarity and inveterate hate. Does he mean, then, to assert that he lived in as “good conscience towards God” at that period, as at the time he spoke, or any other time of his life? He certainly did not, in the sense usually understood. He could not. It was impossible to one who, so often as he does, laments his guilt, and acknowledges his offence, and sets himself down as the chief of sinners “because he persecuted the church of Christ.” Therefore, although he states that “he did it ignorantly, in unbelief;” and although he alleges that at one time he thought in himself that he “ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” yet, no one knew better than he that he was not thereby excusable; for possessing, as he did beyond most men of his time, the means of knowledge, he was responsible for his ignorance, and for the thoughts to which that ignorance gave birth. Hence he was not justified, excused, or exonerated because of his ignorance; but pardoned—“obtained mercy”—as one who had been an offender. Pardon is for the guilty; vindication for the innocent.
Let us not, therefore, think that we may gather from Paul’s declaration the perilous doctrine, that we are to be held excused for the wrong we do, if it be but done with a good intention; and that, if a man be but sincere, and means well at the time, his conduct, if not entitled to praise, is to be pitied rather than blamed, and will not be laid to his account in the chancery of heaven. This is one of those dangerous maxims which a sickly liberality sanctions with its applause. But it is surely not difficult to see that this principle, if carried out to its fair and legitimate consequences, forms an apology for the atrocities of a Clement or a Ravaillac, or of any infuriate fanatic who might imagine himself an instrument chosen by Providence to avenge the cause of Heaven. Indeed, it may be questioned whether, if the plea of good intentions be admitted, it would not effect a general goal delivery throughout the world, for there are few of the crimes which men commit, for which a good intention of some kind or other might not be alleged. Let us understand that we are responsible, not only for our belief, not only for our intentions, but for the use we have made of the means and opportunities we have had of learning whether our intentions would stand “good” before God or not.
Still, the question has not been answered, “If Paul means nothing of all this, what then does he mean?” Simply this: That he purposely chooses a word, which of many Greek words expressing divers manners of life, limits his meaning to political conduct, life as a citizen or a member of the community. The charge against him was, as he knew, that he had been an unfaithful and seditious member of the Jewish community (in which the religion and the civil polity were closely connected, if not identical); and by an anticipatory repulsion of this charge he declares that his conscience bare witness that his conduct, as a member of the Hebrew community, had been blameless to that day. It needs but a glance at the text to show that this is the real and only meaning, and translators are not to be blamed that the English language has no one word, which would convey the meaning of the Greek word adequately. It is likely, however, that Paul intended to explain himself more fully had he not been interrupted.
This bold assertion so irritated the acting high priest, Ananias, who then presided in the Sanhedrin, that he ordered those who stood by Paul—the apparitors and ushers of the court—to smite him on the mouth, a well-known sign of abhorrence and rebuke for the words he had uttered. This is still done in the East, and the stroke is then usually, at this word of command, inflicted damagingly to the mouth, with the heel of a shoe; hence “Give him the shoe!” “Give him plenty of shoe!” are well understood expressions. Paul’s was one of those quick tempers which may be readily kindled, even to some intemperance, under the instant pressure of flagrant wrong. He therefore retorted with some heat, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall! For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandant me to be smitten contrary to the law?” In calling Ananias a “whited wall,” he compared him to those walls composed of mud, dung, and other vile materials, which being plastered and whitewashed made a fair show without. The doom upon Ananias, which Paul thus denounced, was prophetic, and was afterwards fulfilled in the violent death of that personage. Nevertheless, it was delivered with too much warmth, and perhaps vindictive eagerness. He was himself, like most quick-tempered persons, sensible of this the moment after; for when reproved for it by those who stood near, he ingeniously acknowledged his error and pleaded in excuse that he had not at the moment recollected the dignity of the office which Ananias filled, or he would more guardedly have expressed himself. “The best of men,” as Scott remarks on this case, “are liable, when greatly injured and insulted, to be put off their guard; and even that zeal and faithfulness which the Holy Spirit dictates, in warning sinners of approaching ruin, will sometimes be mingled with the remains of our sinful passions, and prompt us to speak unadvisedly with our lips. But whether in reality, or only in appearance, we speak or act inconsistently with the Divine precepts, it is, in general, advisable to decline a strenuous justification of ourselves, and to admit that our conduct was in some respects unfit for imitation.”
Another circumstance now occurred, which, together with the one just noticed, proved how imperfect are the best of men, and how wretched would be our state if we had no better righteousness than our own to cover us, since even the holy Paul was more than once tempted to act an inconsistent part. Seeing no other means by which he might escape the determined malice of his judges, he resolved to extricate himself by setting them at strife against each other; and as he knew that some of them were Pharisees, and the others Sadducees, who differed widely in their ideas of a resurrection, he made his case a party business, by declaring that it was for the hope of the resurrection that he was called in question. This had exactly the effect contemplated, for it roused their animosity against each other, the Pharisees siding with him, and the Sadducees against him; and in consequence of the riot which ensued, his life was in danger of being forfeited to his own contrivance, had not the commandant interposed, and, withdrawing him by force from the council chamber, conducted him back safely to the castle. Many writers conceive that Paul was justified in the course he thus took, and that the Lord’s appearance to him afterwards was a tacit approval of his conduct. But it will appear as if Paul himself had some misgiving of conscience concerning it, for he alleged before Felix that the only thing that with any justice the Jews could lay to his charge was his conduct on this occasion, Act_24:20-21.
Still, the Lord did appear to him the ensuing night, comforting him; but with such comfort as a worldly person would gladly have dispensed with. The Lord said—“Be of good cheer, Paul, for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” This was the same as to say that, as he had suffered much, labored much for his Lord’s sake, so there was much more suffering and labor for His sake yet to undergo. But this was in fact the most effective comfort to the apostle; for he had no greater joy than the advancement of the Gospel, at whatever expense of pain or suffering to himself.