Acts 23:1

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.

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

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.)

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

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, τυπτειν σε μελλει, 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 God’s 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 — Ουκ ηδει οτι εστιν αρχιερευς, 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 Ananias’s 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.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 spoke—perhaps 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.—πεπολίτευμαι properly signifies to discharge one’s 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 Nebedæus, 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 Christ’s 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 Ananias—not a wish (Kuinoel)—was fulfilled (see above).

Act_23:4. To revile God’s 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 God’s 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 (Zöckler), 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 Schürer’s 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 Spirit’s 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 apostle’s 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 apostle’s statement was substantially correct, that whatever was the ostensible ground of complaint against him, the real cause of his apprehension was his witness concerning Christ’s resurrection—since 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 Weizsäcker 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 Taricheæ, 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 life”—the 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 Paul’s vision in the temple (Act_22:17). The best texts omit let us not fight against God. They were probably an interpolation from Gamaliel’s 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 θάρσει (Christ’s), compare Mat_9:2; Mat_14:27; Mar_6:50; Joh_16:33. For the same phrase with a different verb, εὐθυμεῖτε (Paul’s), see Act_27:22; Act_27:25. The vision announced the close of the first and the beginning of the second of Paul’s proposed journeys (Act_19:21).

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_23:1-10

The Scene in the Council Chamber; or, Paul’s 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 Nebedæus.

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 colleagues”—brothers! 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 long—not 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 Nebedæus, who was appointed to fill this ecclesiastical office by Herod of Chalcis and whose tenure continued from A.D. 47–59, 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 Schürer in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch 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 unendurable—in fact, an intolerable presumption and unspeakable insolence—that 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 master’s 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 outburst—“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.”

(1) So far as Ananias was concerned the language was both strikingly correct and richly deserved. Sitting there as Jehovah’s representative, clothed, perhaps, in his white priestly raiment and pretending to be a judge of offences against Heaven’s law, he was little better than a whited wall, beautiful without, but coarse within, “daubed over with untempered mortar”—an 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 (Zöckler), 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 Ananias’s 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 down—which 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 committed—which, however, he did not (see Act_24:21).

4. How it ended. Challenged by the attendants for reviling, as they called his scathing sentence, God’s 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 Paul’s 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 other—defective sight, or an uncertainty as to whether the president of the court was the high priest—he 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 Moses—“Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people”—he 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 people—representing 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 David’s and Solomon’s 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 this—that 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 Schürer in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, arts. Pharisäer and Sadduccäer; and Langhans’s Biblische Geschichte und Literatur, ii. 431–435).

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 prisoner’s 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 apostle’s 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 Master’s 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 apostle’s 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 man’s extremity is ever God’s opportunity (compare Act_27:24).

2. Its heavenly origin. It came direct from the Lord—i.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 Paul’s 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 God’s 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. God’s 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 Paul’s human vehemence.—Gerok.

Spots in the Sun; or, some things about Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 Master’s words—“Whosoever 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, God’s 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 Spirit’s 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 Paul’s 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, Paul’s 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 falsehood—Divide 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 Christ’s people will not be raised hereafter. If Christ still exists, and if Christ’s 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 Christ’s death has not been an atonement for the sins of men.

(3) The Christian gospel is a fiction, the Christian’s 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 existed—in 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 man’s 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 man’s 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 God’s 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. Paul’s Midnight Visitor.—“And the night following the Lord stood by him.” What did this signify?

I. Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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 Damascus—“Saul! 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. Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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 Paul’s past experiences had only been training him for his last place of ministry—Rome. So Christ leads His people and educates them for higher and nobler service. Often true on earth; certainly true of all earth’s 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 King’s 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 Christ’s 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 Cæsarea.

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 Christ’s Suffering Servants.

I. Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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. Christ’s 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.

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

23:1 In addressing the high council, Paul insisted on his personal integrity before God—he had not violated God’s law or done the things they accused him of doing.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 23:1. Ἀτενίσας, 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.—ἐγὼ, 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.—συνειδήσει, 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.—τῷ Θεῷ, before God) although all men did not approve of it.

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

Act_23:1-2. Paul, with the free and firm look (ἀτενίσας τῷ συνεδρ.) in which his good conscience is reflected, commences an address in his own defence to the Sanhedrim, and that in such a way aswithout 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 ἅνδρες ἀδελφοί)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.

πάσῃ συνειδ. ἀγ.] 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 ἐγώ at the commencement is implied a moral self-consciousness of rectitude.

πεπολίτευμαι τῷ Θεῷ] 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 Php_1:27.

ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς Ἀνανίας] 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 ὁ ἀρχιερ. only the strict signification of the high priest performing the duties, and not that of one of the plurality of ἀρχιερεῖς,[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 latters 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 ἀρχιερεύς Jonathan is recorded, this ἈΡΧΙΕΡ. 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.

τοῖς παρεστ. αὐτῷ] to those who (as officers in attendance on the court) stood beside him, Luk_19:24.

τύπτ. αὐτοῦ τὸ στ.] to smite him on the mouth. Comp. as to the αὐτοῦ 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.

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

Act 23:1 . ἀτενίσας , 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). ἄνδ . ἀδελ .: the omission of πατέρες suggests that he addressed the assembly not as judges but as fellow-countrymen. On ἀδελ . see on Act 1:15 . It is of course possible, as Chrysostom observes, that he did not wish to appear εὐκαταφρόνητος before the chiliarch. συνειδήσει : the word occurs no less than thirty times in N.T., R.V., so also in Joh 8:9 , but 1Co 8:7 , συνηθείᾳ , 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 ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις 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, Wörterbuch, 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 . πεπολ .: 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 πολιτεία , 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 ποῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαμένοις , 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), τοῖς θεοῖς πρὸς οὓς ὁσίως καὶ … δικαίως ( πολι ) τευσάμενος . τῷ Θεῷ : 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 . ἄχρι ταύτης τῆς ἡμ ., 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.

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

Act 23:1-10. ST PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN. DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES

1. ἀτενίσας δέ, and earnestly beholding. 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.

On its use in describing St Paul’s earnest look, see Act 14:9, note.

ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί. See note on Act 1:16.

ἐγὼ πάση συνειδήσει … ἄχρι ταύτης τῆς ἡμέρας, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. The ἐγώ is emphatic. 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.’ πολιτεύομαι 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. He employs the verb again in his epistle to the Philippians (Php 1:27). It is also found in LXX. 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25 πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν προγόνων αὐτῶν ἔθη.

So far as being devoted to God’s service, St Paul’s 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.

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

23:1.] ἀτενίσας 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, ver. 5. See ch. 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 πολιτεία of which he was a covenant member. Thus πεπολίτευμαι τῷ θεῷ will have its full and proper meaning: and the words are no vain-glorious ones, but an important assertion of his innocence.

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

Paul against the false accusations of his enemies, setteth a good conscience, for proof whereof, he repeateth the whole course of his life.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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, Act 6:15. 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 (Eze 3:8, Eze 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 Act 26:9. (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 13:18. 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 (Act 23:2), 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 (Joh 18:22), as was foretold, Mic 5:1, 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 (Kg1 22:24), and Pashur smote Jeremiah (Jer 20:2), 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 (Sol 1:2) 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 (Pro 24:26), 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 (Ecc 3:16): it agrees with what follows there, Act 23:17, 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, Act 23:3. 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, Mat 23:27. 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, Deu 25:2. 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 (Act 23:4): 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? Co2 11:29. 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, Co1 8:13. 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 (Act 23:5): I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - ouk ēdein. "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 34:18. Even when we do well, and suffer for it, we must take it patiently, Pe1 2:20. 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, Jde 1:8. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought, Ecc 10:20.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

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

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 Stephen’s 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 man’s 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.

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

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.

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

And Paul, earnestly beholding - ἀτενίσας 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 - τῷ Θεῷ tō Theō. 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.

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

With an entire good conscience. With an upright sincerity. But St. Paul is far from excusing himself from all sin. He laments elsewhere his blind zeal in persecuting the Christians. See 1 Corinthians xv. 9. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 God’s seeing of him, and whom St. Paul acknowledges to be the searcher and knower of the heart and conscience.

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

St. Paul sent to Cæesarea

1. St. Paul often asserts his good conscience before God and man: see Act_22:3; Act_24:16.

2. Ananias] is not the same as Annas (Act_4:6). He was the son of Nebedæus, and held the high priesthood from 47-59 a.d. His rapacity and violence were notorious. To smite him] because, being a prisoner, he spoke without being asked: cp. Joh_18:22.

3. God shall smite thee] St. Paul's angry retort has often been contrasted with our Lord's mild words on a similar occasion (Joh_18:23). But St. Paul's rebuke was well deserved. Thou whited wall] i.e. 'thou hypocrite.' The allusion is to the practice of limewashing dirty walls to conceal the filth: cp. Mat_23:27; Luk_11:44. Contrary to the law] see Joh_7:51, and cp. Deu_19:15, etc.

5. As the high priest, when present, presided over the Sanhedrin, it is somewhat strange that St. Paul should not have known who Ananias was. A possible explanation is that St. Paul was somewhat short-sighted.

Thou shalt not speak evil] see Exo_22:28.

6f. The Sadducees, who disbelieved a future life or a resurrection, derided the supposed appearance of the risen Jesus; but the Pharisees, who believed both, heard St. Paul's story with considerable sympathy. St. Paul then; seeing how matters stood, declared himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He declared that, like the Pharisees, he looked for the coming (i.e. the Second Coming) of the Messiah ('the hope' of Israel), and for the future resurrection of the dead, and claimed Pharisaic sympathy against his Sadducean enemies.

11. The appearance was vouchsafed to Paul to assure him that his life would not be cut short before the great desire of his life was attained.

12-35. St. Paul is sent to Cæsarea.

12. The men who plotted against St. Paul were probably Sicarii or Assassins (see on Act_21:38), whom we know that the high priest Ananias did not scruple to employ to remove his enemies.

16. St. Paul's nephew was perhaps a rabbinical student at Jerusalem, as St. Paul himself had been.

26-30. Lysias presents his action in the most favourable light. He makes no mention of his illegal order to scourge the prisoner, and takes credit to himself for his zeal in succouring a Roman citizen, whereas, as a matter of fact, he had no idea at the time that St. Paul was a Roman citizen.

27. An army] RV 'the soldiers.'

31. Antipatris] founded by Herod the Great, now Râs-el-'Ain.

33. The governor] i.e. Antonius Felix, procurator of Judæa, cirActs 52-58 a.d. His ferocious repression of the Zealots called into being a new and still more pernicious class of enthusiasts, the Sicarii, or Assassins: see on Act_21:38; His folly and cruelty goaded the nation into disaffection and rebellion.

34. Of Cilicia] Cilicia and Judaea were at this time minor provinces, attached to the superior province of Syria. Hence Felix could have sent Paul for trial to the governor of Syria, if he had wished.

35. Herod's judgment hall] the palace built by Herod the Great at Cæsarea, where the Roman procurator resided. It was also a fortress, and would contain a guard-room.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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; ajtenisav, as in Act_1:10 Act_3:4, 12 6:15 7:55 10:4 11:6 13:9 14:9. It governs a dative here, Act_3:12 Act_10:1 Act_14:9; Luk_4:20 Luk_22:56; elsewhere it is followed by eijv. Brethren. He emits here the "fathers" which he added inteumai 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. (pepole tw Qew); 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 oitinev fanrien tw patoiw nomw politeuomenoi "who were seen to live according to the Law of their fathers." And so in RAPC 2Ma 6:1 it is said that he sent to compel the Jews to forsake the Law of their fathers kaimoiv mhesqai and not live agreeably to the laws of God. And once more, in RAPC 3Ma 3:3, 4 the Jews are said to fear God and to be tw toutou nomw politeuomenoi, living according to his Law. Here, then, politeuesqi tw Qew 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)

Vers. 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, fear fear 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 preached the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting beyond the grave the division between his enemies was at its height, and a large portion ofhis 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 ver. 11, does not look as if St. Paul had sullied his bright conscience by any unworthy shifts when he stood before the council.

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON. Ver. 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.

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD

Vers. 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.

HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER Vers. 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 know whether 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 small in "all things.

4. He glanced, to say the least, and very significantly, at the fact that conscience, too, had its Superior, its Master, its Judge the 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 thing the 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_23:27) 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 disposition other things being equal to 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.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCKA 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.

I 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.

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

And Paul earnestly beholding the council - Professing a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question, said, I have lived in all good conscience before God till this day - 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 an error, yet he had acted from conscience, before God - Whatever men may think or say of me.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

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 Christ’s 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 Paul’s, 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 Peter’s case, nor the earthquake as at Philippi. We are sensibly on different ground.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Paul, earnestly beholding. Attentively studying his audience, and no doubt seeking whether there were old acquaintances among the members of the Sanhedrim. He probably knew at least a part of the body. Many years before he had been its trusted agent, to execute its orders against Christians; now he is on trial before it for being one of that body which it formerly employed him to destroy. They regarded him a renegade, much as our countrymen regard Benedict Arnold, and their hate was so vindictive that they were utterly unable to listen calmly to his defence. Hence, as soon as he began by declaring that he had acted in all good conscience until this day, the high priest ordered that he be smitten in the mouth.

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

Connecting Statement:

Paul stands before the chief priests and the council members. (See: Acts 22:30)

Brothers

Here this means "Fellow Jews."

I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day

"I know that even to this day I have done what God has wanted me to do"

Ananias

This is the name of a man. Though this is the same name, this not the same Ananias as in Acts 5:1 nor the same Ananias as in Acts 9:10. (See: How to Translate Names)

whitewashed wall

This refers to a wall that was painted white to make it look clean. Paul told Ananias that just as a wall can be painted to look clean so Ananias appeared to look morally clean, but he was really full of evil intent. AT: "whitepainted wall" (See: Metaphor)

Are you sitting to judge ... against the law?

Paul uses a question to point out Ananias' hypocrisy. AT: "You sit there to judge ... against the law." (See: Rhetorical Question)

order me to be struck

This can be stated in active form. You can use the same word for "strike" as you did in the phrase "God will strike you." AT: "command people to strike me" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

Paul

council

brother

God

conscience

high priest

command

judge, judges

law

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

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 [πεπολιτευμαι] . 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 [συνειδησει] . See on 1Pe 3:16.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.