Grk/Heb Fonts

Bible Commentaries

Lange's Commentary: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical

Acts 22

B.—THE APOSTLE IS INTERRUPTED BY THE PASSIONATE CRIES OF THE PEOPLE, AND IS IN DANGER OF BEING SCOURGED BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITY, BUT IS PROTECTED BY HIS ROMAN CITIZENSHIP

Acts 22:22-29

22 And [But] they gave him audience [listened to him] unto this word, and then lifted up their voices [voice, τ. φωνὴν αὑτῶν], and said, Away with such a fellow [such a one, τὸν τοιοῦτον] from the earth: for it is [was⁹] not fit that he should live 23 And [But] as they cried out, and cast off [tossed up] their clothes [garments], and threw dust into the air, 24The chief captain [tribune] commanded him to be brought into¹⁰ the castle [barracks], and bade [said, εἰπὼν] that he should be examined [tortured] by scourging; that he might know wherefore [ascertain for what reason] they cried so [thus, ὅυτως] against him 25 And as they bound him with thongs [But when they¹¹ stretched him out before the thongs], Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman [a Roman citizen], and uncondemned? 26When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain [tribune], saying, Take heed what thou doest; [saying, What art thou about to do?]¹² for this man is a Roman [a Roman citizen]. 27Then the chief captain came [the tribune went to him], and said unto him, Tell me, art thou¹³ a Roman [citizen] ? He said, Yea 28 And the chief captain [tribune] answered, With a great [For a considerable] sum obtained I this freedom [this right of citizenship]. And [But] Paul said, But I was free born [But I was such already by birth]. 29Then [Therefore, οὖν] straightway they departed [withdrew] from him which should have examined [who were about (οἱ μέλλοντες) to torture¹⁴] him: and the chief captain [tribune] also [om. also] was afraid, after he knew [had ascertained] that he was a Roman [citizen], and [om. and] because he had bound him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Acts 22:22-23. And they gave him audience unto this word.—Paul’s word that Christ had sent him to the Gentiles, aroused anew the fanatical zeal of his hearers. [“This word, not the word Gentiles … for it is not the last word in the Greek sentence … but the last part of Paul’s discourse, in which he undertook to justify his mission to the Gentiles on the ground of an express divine command, etc.” (Alexander).—Tr.]. They interrupted him at this point by loud cries, which were intended to drown the sound of his voice (ἐπῆραν τ. φων.). Τὸν τοιοῦτον, i.e, a man of such a character. Meyer understands the imperfect καθῆκεν [see note1, appended to the text, above.—Tr.] as referring to the circumstances mentioned in Acts 21:31, when Paul was in danger of being killed; the sense would then be: “He should not have been rescued,—his life should not have then been saved.” [“He should have long since been killed; non debebat, or, debuerat vivere.” (Winer, Gram. § 41. a2.).—“Claudius Lysias should not have rescued him.” (Conyb. and H. ΙΙ. 266, and n5.).—“The sense will then be, ‘We were right at first, it was not fit that he should live, as we declared before.’ ” (Alex.).—Tr.]. But the meaning rather seems to be: “He forfeited his life long ago.” Κραυγάζειν indicates inarticulate cries which the multitude uttered. [Ῥιπτ. τ. ἱματ., “not throwing off their garments, as a preparation for stoning Paul (Grot, Mey.), for he was now in the custody of the Roman captain; but throwing them up, tossing them about, as a manifestation and an effect of their incontrollable rage.” (Hackett).—Tr.]. They tossed up their clothes, and threw dust into the air; by these wild gestures, which indicated their fury, they implied that they would themselves gladly accomplish all that they meant, when they cried: “Away with him from the earth!”

Acts 22:24-25. a. The chief captain commanded.—The Roman commander was now satisfied that he could accomplish nothing under present circumstances, and, accordingly, gave directions that the prisoner should be conducted from the stairs ( Acts 21:39) on which he had stood while he was speaking, into the barracks, that is, into the interior of the tower of Antonia. [The tribune, who was unacquainted with the language of the country, did not understand the apostle, and could not comprehend the cause of the exasperation of the people. (de Wette).—Tr.]. He concluded that the fury of Paul’s hearers must have been aroused by some crime which he had committed, but not yet confessed; hence he commanded that the apostle should be beaten with a scourge, as an instrument of torture, in order to compel him to confess his crime (ἀνετάζειν, to put to the question). [Judicial torture, for the purpose of eliciting a confession, has acquired a euphemistic name, the application of the rack, etc, being known in history as putting men to the question. (Alexander).—Flagra in habendis quæstionibus apud Romanos usitata erant, e. g., Tac. Hist. IV:27. Ἀνετάζειν, ut ἐτάζειν, proprie significat inquirere, percontari, quocunque modo hoc fiat … deinde notat per tormenta habere quæstionem de aliquo, ut hoc loc.; hinc torquere, ut Sap. (Σοφ. Σαλ. Apocr.) Acts 2:19, βασάνῳ ἐτάσωμεν αὐτὸν. (Kuinoel).—Tr.]. In consequence of this command, the apostle was at once tied to a post, in order to be exposed to the blows of the scourge. Προέτ. τοῖς ἱμᾶσι cannot mean: “they bound him with thongs” (Luther, and others [Calvin, Vulg, Engl. version, etc.—Tr.], as there would have, in that case, been no reason for prefixing the definite article to ἱμᾶσι; these ἱμάντες must necessarily be assumed to be identical with the μάστιγες mentioned in Acts 22:24, the scourge being, in fact, made of thongs. According to this interpretation, the definite article is very appropriately employed. They stretched him before the thongs (already mentioned), as the object towards which these were to be directed. [The προ in the verb, alludes to the position of the prisoner—bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. (Alford).—“They stretched him out for the whips, i. e., in a suitable position for receiving them.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. The plural, προέτειναν, refers to the soldiers who were ordered to inflict the punishment.

b. Is it lawful for you, etc.—Before the order was executed, the apostle offered a protest in the form of a question, addressed to the centurion who superintended the proceedings. The question implies, as Chrysostom has already remarked, that the law would be violated in two respects, if the scourging which had been ordered, should actually take place. They would, in the first place, punish the prisoner before he had been tried and sentenced (ἀκατάκριτον—μαστίζειν), for the scourging was actually a punishment, and not simply a feature belonging to the trial; hence the beginning of the trial would have been the infliction of the punishment. In the second place, Paul asserts his privilege as a civis Romanus; the Roman citizen was exempted, according to the lex Porcia and the leges Semproniæ, from the punishment of scourging, even if he was convicted of a crime; scourging was the punishment of a slave. [On Paul’s Roman citizenship, see Exeg. note on Acts 16:35-40 a.—Tr.].

Acts 22:26-29. When the centurion heard that.—The commander, after receiving the report of the centurion, came forward himself in order to inquire personally respecting the fact that his prisoner was a Roman citizen. [“Lysias was both astonished and alarmed. He knew full well that no man would dare to assume the right of citizenship if it did not really belong to him.—Such pretensions were liable to capital punishment. Suet. Claud. 25.” (Conyb. and H. II:267, 268).—“The chiliarch was probably surprised that one of Paul’s appearance should possess the right at all,” etc. (Alexander).—Tr.]. Σὺ ̔Ρωμ. εἶ; full of wonder, he asks in an emphatic manner: “Thou art a Roman citizen?” Κεφάλαιον literally means a capital. [“We learn from Dio Cassius, that the civitas of Rome was, in the early part of the reign of Claudius, sold at a high rate, and afterwards for a mere trifle.” (Conyb. loc. cit.).—Tr.]. The alarm of the tribune arose from the circumstance that the act of fettering a Roman citizen was punishable by law, when it was done with violence, and before the proof was furnished that a penal act had been committed.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. It was not so much Paul’s open and fearless confession of Jesus, viewed in itself, as his call to be the apostle of the Gentiles, that led to the interruption of his discourse, and to this outbreak of deadly fury on the part of the people. It is precisely the prominent and peculiar feature of his mission, that subjects him to suffering.

2. A Roman privilege protects the apostle of Christ; it had autonomically grown up in the way in which God suffered the Romans to walk ( Acts 14:16). Such a privilege, enjoyed by a particular class, was altogether pagan and aristocratic in its character; still, it is now employed as the means for rendering a service to a messenger of God.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Acts 22:22. And they gave him audience unto this word.—The envy of the Jews now vents itself; they were unwilling themselves to enter the kingdom of God, and violently opposed the entrance of others—of the Gentiles [ Matthew 23:13]. (Rieger).—Paul had delivered a very instructive and powerful discourse; nevertheless, he accomplished nothing. Its results were madness and fury, revenge and malice, on the part of his hearers, This case teaches us to form our opinion of a sermon with great caution, and not to measure its value by its visible fruits. (Ap. Past.).—Away with such a fellow from the earth.—These were words of madness, which Jesus Himself heard from His people. We plainly see that the apostle did not exaggerate, when he said of himself and his brethren that they were regarded as the filth of the world, and as the off-scouring of all things [ 1 Corinthians 4:13]. (Ap. Past.).

Acts 22:23. Cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air.—These were alarming preparations for the process of stoning [but see the Exeg. note on this passage.—Tr.]. They still present, even in our day, an image of man, when the madness of passion controls him. He rends his clothes, casts off the last remnant of shame and modesty, and exhibits himself, without disguise, in his brutal nakedness; he throws up dust, in order to sully all that is bright and beautiful, to pollute all that is noble, and to delude himself.—“It is dangerous to awaken the lion; the tiger’s tooth is destructive; but the most terrible of all terrors, is—man in his delusion.” (Schiller).

Acts 22:24. Bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know, etc.—During a tumult, the infliction of the punishment is usually the beginning of the trial. At such times, even wise men may commit serious errors. To scourge, and only afterwards investigate the case—such is the practice of the world. It condemns that which it does not understand, and passes sentence on him whom it has not convicted. But be of good cheer, O Christian, when this is thine own experience. Another day of judgment awaits thee, when God Himself will Judges, and when He will review and annul all those unrighteous sentences and decrees, which had here been passed. A very different decision will then be proclaimed. (Wisd. of Song of Solomon 6:4-5).—But thou, O earthly Judges, consider the case well, and adopt every precaution, if thou wouldst not have the burden of innocent blood on thy conscience. (Starke).

Acts 22:25. Is it lawful, etc.?—A Christian is at liberty to appeal to the law and to his rights, in order to escape unjust and violent treatment. When Christians are obliged to reside in the Roman empire—or in Turkey—they may, with a good conscience, appeal for protection to the laws of such countries, as far as these are sanctioned by God, and by nature, 1 Thessalonians 5:21. (Starke).—If such a privilege as citizenship, in any earthly kingdom, possesses this great value, how precious the privilege of the children of God must be, who have, in consequence of their new birth, become the citizens of heaven! [Πολίτευμα, Philippians 3:20.—Tr.]

Acts 22:28. And Paul said, But I was free born.—Nor should the Christian despise the privileges and advantages of birth, but conscientiously avail himself of them, in promoting the honor of God, and the welfare of his neighbors, 1 Corinthians 10:33. (Starke).

Acts 22:29. And the chief captain also was afraid, etc.—The whole multitude had cried: “Away with such a fellow, etc.” ( Acts 22:22), and yet the apostle now inspires the chief captain himself with fear. Thus the Lord exalts his servants, even when they seem to have been crushed. While they bear the image of the cross in humility and ignominy, the image of the Saviour, which decorates them, invests them with such honor and authority, that even ungodly men are alarmed, and withdraw from them. (Ap. Past.).

ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Acts 22:22-29.—The apostle’s danger, and his deliverance: I. The danger (a) originated in his testimony to the truth, Acts 22:22, and comp. Acts 22:18; Acts 22:21; (b) was caused by the intolerant pride of the Jews; and (c) threatened a fatal issue, Acts 22:22-23. II. The deliverance, was effected because (a) the Roman commander was governed by a sense of justice, (b) the apostle possessed the privileges of a citizen, and (c) a new opportunity for vindicating himself was afforded, Acts 22:30. (Lisco.)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people [ Proverbs 14:34]. (id.).

Paul, a model as a noble sufferer: I. By the manner in which he endures unavoidable sufferings; (a) he observes silence, Acts 22:22 ff.; (b) he forgives, Acts 22:23; (c) he calmly suffers, Acts 22:24. II. By the manner in which he averts an unnecessary humiliation; (a) he does not seek martyrdom; (b) he cautions the magistrate not to abuse his power; (c) he retains, in its integrity, the consciousness of his dignity as a man. (id.).

The infuriated people of Jerusalem, an impressive illustration of fanaticism: showing that fanaticism, I. Dishonors God, in whose service it claims to be zealous; II. Maltreats the innocent, whom it has selected as its victims; III. Degrades itself, by converting men into wild beasts, Acts 22:22-23.

Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?—a word proceeding from the mouth of God, as a warning addressed to tyrants; it reminds them, I. Of the inalienable rights of man; II. Of the sacred honor of the citizen; III. Of the inviolable dignity of the Christian.

The sacred character of a servant of God: I. When he is violently assailed, he may protest, with gentleness and humility, Acts 22:25; comp. John 18:23. II. When he is exposed to external ill treatment, the inner man remains inviolate, Acts 6:15. III. When he is trodden in the dust, he shall be crowned with eternal honor, Matthew 5:11-12,

The inalienable nobility of the children of God: it is, I. Acquired through regeneration, Acts 22:28; II. Attested by the Spirit of God, who bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God [ Romans 8:16]; III. Proved in trials and temptations, Acts 22:23 ff.; IV. Renewed in heaven, where they shall appear with Christ in glory, Colossians 3:4.

The exalted privileges of a citizen in the kingdom of God: I. He has no reason to fear the powers of the world; (Paul entertains no fear in the presence of the Roman officer; the latter, on the contrary, fears him, Acts 22:29). II. The blows which the world attempts to inflict, cannot reach him; (a citizen of Rome could not be legally scourged; a citizen of Christ is not exempt, it is true, from the strokes of affliction and the scourge of persecution, but these neither pain nor dishonor him). III. He is not bound by the judgment of the world; (Paul appeals from the commander, when governed by false impressions, to the same man, when he possesses a knowledge of the facts, and, ultimately, appeals to the emperor himself. The Christian appeals from the judgment of the world to the tribunal of his heavenly King.)

The Christian values, but does not overvalue his civil rights: I. He does not scorn to avail himself of the advantages connected with his birth, Acts 22:28, but he knows that they are of no value without nobility of soul. II. He does not sacrifice the rights which the law recognizes, Acts 22:25, but he claims them in a gentle and an humble spirit. III. He demands the protection of the government, Acts 22:25, but his confidence is primarily fixed on the Lord of lords, and King of kings, Acts 22:21.

Footnotes

C.—PAUL IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL; HE MAKES HIS DEFENCE; THE COMFORTING PROMISE WHICH THE LORD GIVES HIM

Acts 22:30– Acts 23:11

[ Acts 22:30]. On the morrow, because he would have known [But on the following day, wishing to know] the certainty wherefore [of that of which] he was accused of [by] the Jews, he loosed him from his bands [he released him¹⁵], and commanded the chief priests and all their [the] council to appear [assemble], and brought Paul down, and set him before them.

[ Acts 23:1.] And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until [I have walked before God with all good conscience unto] this day 2 And [But] the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth 3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall [will, μέλλει] smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou [wall: thou sittest] to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law [me, in violation of the law, to be Smitten]? 4And [But] they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? 5Then said Paul [And (τε) Paul said], I wist [knew] not, brethren, that he was , ἐστὶν] the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people 6 But when Paul perceived [But as Paul knew] that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee [a son of Pharisees¹]: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question [for the sake of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged!]. 7And [But] when he had so said [said this, τοῦτο], there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees: and the multitude was divided 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, [and] neither² angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess9 both 9 And [But] there arose a great cry: and the scribes³ that were of the Pharisees’ part [cry: and scribes 4 of the party of the Pharisees] arose, and strove [contended], saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God [man: but if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?⁴]. 10And when [But as] there arose a great dissension, the chief captain [the tribune], fearing lest Paul should have been [might be] pulled in pieces of [by] them, commanded the soldiers to go [that the soldiers should come] down, and to take him by force [and snatch him] from among them, and to [om. to] bring him into the castle [barracks]. 11And [But in] the night following the Lord stood by [came to] him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul [om. Paul]:⁵for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Acts 22:30. On the morrow.—Τὸ ἀσφαλές, i.e., that which is certain or sure; Lysias wished to obtain information on which he could rely; the words: τὸ τί … Ἰουδαίων, are in apposition with the former [“referring epexegetically to τὸ ἀσφαλές.” (Meyer).—Tr.]. Lysias did not investigate the facts themselves, but wished to ascertain the precise charge which the Jews brought, against Paul. He had hitherto learned nothing that was definite; he had only perceived that the Jews were excessively excited, and spoke of Paul with the utmost exasperation. The hierarchical authority of the Jews could, as he hoped, enable him to accomplish his design. His command that a meeting of the Sanhedrin should be held, demonstrates that the independence of the Jews, even in matters referring to the internal concerns of their religion, had been seriously impaired. The word συνελθεῖν implies that the members assembled in the ordinary council-room, whereas the reading ἐλθεῖν, which is not well attested [note1, appended to the text—Tr.], assumes that they were required to meet at the abode of the Roman. Besides, καταγαγών (with which compare καταβάν, Acts 23:10), indicates a locality in the city itself, and not one in the interior of the tower of Antonia, which commanded the city. From the word ἔλυσεν it appears that, although Lysias had at first felt some alarm, because he had illegally fettered a Roman citizen, he had, nevertheless, not freed Paul from his bonds, until he presented him to the Sanhedrin. [“Although he had been alarmed, he determined, in a spirit of defiance, to exhibit no signs of weakness to the Jews, by the immediate release of the prisoner.—Καταγαγών, i.e., brought him down from the tower to the council-room of the Sanhedrin.”(Meyer).—Tr.].

Acts 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.—The apostle was now placed before the Sanhedrin, like the Redeemer himself, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, and like the first apostles, Acts 4:7 ff; Acts 5:27 ff. Ἀτενίσας, i.e., he steadfastly surveyed the assembly before him, with a calm and undaunted spirit. The address, ἄνδρ. ἀδελφοι, without πατέρες (as in Acts 22:1), demonstrates that he felt himself to be the equal of the persons before him. He commences the proceedings himself, for he had not been cited by the assembly, but had been placed before them by the Roman commandant. Hence they waited until the latter made his own statement; the apostle, on his part, speaks with great composure. He testifies that he had a good conscience, inasmuch as he had always fulfilled his duty to God in every respect; πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ, in every respect, in every case, with a good conscience. Πολιτεύομαι (which is equivalent to rempublicam gero, fungor magistratu in repub.) here implies: “I have performed my office with a good conscience τῷ θεῷ;” the latter is dativus commodi, namely, “for God.” [“I have lived unto God, i. e., for his service and glory; See Romans 14:8; Galatians 2:19.” (Hackett).—Tr.]. The usus loquendi furnishes no authority whatever for taking πολιτεύομαι in an entirely abstract sense, as if it were equivalent to vitam instituere, or, se gerere.

Acts 23:2-3. a. The high priest Ananias.—He is also mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xx52; 62 f.). He was the son of Nebedæus, and was appointed high priest by Herod, the king of Chalcis, in the year A. D. Acts 48: he probably retained his high office till towards the year60, when Ismael, the son of Phabi, was made the high priest, shortly before the departure of the procurator Felix (Jos. Ant. xx88).—Ananias was sent to Rome, in the year A. D52, by Quadratus, the governor of Syria, in order to defend himself before the emperor Claudius, in reference to certain acts of violence of which the Samaritans accused the Jews (Jos. Ant. xx62). This circumstance led interpreters, at an earlier period, to believe that Ananias had, on that occasion, been deposed, and that, when Paul appeared before him, he was only temporarily administering the office, or, possibly, merely retained the honorary title of an Exodus -high priest (Eichhorn; Kuinoel). But Ananias pleaded his cause with entire success when he was in Rome, and then returned to Jerusalem, where he was, no doubt, allowed to retain his office without interruption. This is the opinion, among other recent writers, of Winer (Realwört.), Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalters, 1848, p76 f. note), Meyer (Com.), and Ewald (Ap. Zeitalter, p500). Thus, other historical records establish the fact that Ananias was at that time unquestionably the ruling high priest—a fact indicated by the designation ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς, Acts 23:2; Acts 23:4.

b. Commanded them that stood by him, etc.—[Τοῖς παρεστ. αὐτῷ, those who stood at his (the high priest’s) side—servants, or officers of the court; comp. Luke 19:24. (Meyer).—Tr.]. Scarcely had Paul uttered the first words, when the high priest, to whom they seemed to betray audacity or hypocrisy, commanded those who stood by (probably officers of justice), to smite him on the mouth. But Paul replied to him with righteous indignation, and announced a divine retribution for that blow. [“Observe the position, (at the beginning of the reply) of the word τύπτειν, which, in a higher sense, returns to the high priest the blow that had just been received. It is an arbitrary assumption (Baumg.), that the command of the high priest was not executed.” (Meyer).—Tr.]. The words τύπτειν σὲ μελλει, do not constitute an imprecation, as Kuinoel supposes. [“Shall smite, literally, is (or is about) to smite, the first verb denoting simple futurity … the idea of a (human) curse or imprecation is at variance with the very form of the original.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. The expression τοῖχε κεκονιαμένε exposes the hypocrisy of Ananias; it contrasts the external splendor of the paint or lime on the surface of the wall with the interior parts, which consist of filthy clay. [“A whited wall is a familiar figure for a fair outside, behind which, or within which, all is foul and filthy. Our Saviour uses the still stronger image of a whited sepulchre, Matthew 23:27.” (Alex.).—Tr.]. Great prominence is given to the inconsistency of the high priest, who professes to judge according to the rule of the Mosaic law, and yet personally violates it, by illegally subjecting Paul to ill treatment. Καὶ σύ, i.e, Thou too, as well as the rest, whereas, thou, as a Judges, art specially bound to observe the law with strictness and conscientiousness. [“Κάθῃ, for κάθησαι” (Winer § 144).—Tr.]—That prophetical announcement was fulfilled ten years afterwards, when Ananias, as one of the leaders of the loyal imperial party, was murdered, at the beginning of the Jewish war, by the insurgents [the sicarii]; Jos. Jewish War, ii179.

Acts 23:4-5. Revilest thou, etc.?—To the charge that when Paul addressed such abusive language to the high priest of God, he offered an insult to the holy God himself, he replied, (for the purpose of justifying his course,) that he knew not that the person so addressed was the high priest. This answer has received various artificial interpretations, and its meaning has often been distorted. In some of these cases, the words “that he is the high priest” (ὄτι ἐστὶν ἀρχ.), in others “I knew not” (οὐκ ᾔδειν), have served as the basis of the explanation. The former have, by a forced interpretation, been represented as meaning that the apostle denied that Ananias was really the high priest, either because he had procured the office by money (Grotius), or because he really was not at that time the true high priest (Lightfoot). The meaning of the other words, in which Paul speaks of his want of knowledge of the fact, has also been perverted by commentators, as if Paul intended to say: ‘I did not reflect that he is the high priest’ (Wetstein, Olshausen, Ewald). According to this view, Paul really retracts his words, as having been too hastily uttered, or, he means by οὐκ ᾔδειν: ‘I do not admit that it is so’ (Augustine), or “I could not know—could not think that he is the high priest, since he has acted in a manner so unpriestly, and so entirely unworthy of a high priest” (Calvin, Meyer, Baumgarten). [Calvin says: Ego Augustino subscribens non dubito quin hæc ironica sit excusatio, etc.—Tr.]. The cause which has led to these far-fetched explanations, was the apparent impossibility of believing that the words, if taken in their plain and direct sense, conveyed the truth, namely, that the apostle actually did not know that he who had given that unbecoming command, was in truth the high priest in office. There have, however, been interpreters, who adhere to the literal sense of the words—for instance, Chrysostom; Beza. They appeal to the fact that the apostle had long been absent from Jerusalem, and hence could not personally know the high priest. If Ananias had been invested with the office at the time when Paul proceeded with the letters of the “high priest” ( Acts 9:1-2) to Damascus, in order to persecute the Christians, it would be inconceivable that Paul should not now know the same man. But it has already been fully demonstrated that Ananias did not obtain the office until the year48, whereas the latest date that can possibly be fixed as that of Paul’s conversion, is the year40 or41. [See Exeg. note on Acts 9:2.—Tr.]. Besides, the high priest could not be recognized by his apparel, when he was not engaged in performing his official duties in the temple. It is also quite possible that Ananias was not, at that moment, the presiding officer of the meeting, for the whole occurred, not at a regular session of the Sanhedrin, but at one which had been unexpectedly appointed by the Roman tribune. Or, if Ananias even did act as the presiding officer, Paul could not know from that circumstance that he was also the high priest, for the latter was not always or necessarily the nasi (president of the Sanhedrin). [“It should be remembered that the intricacy and confusion on these points—the many High Priests who had been successively put up and down by Roman intervention, etc.—is not necessarily the fault of the historian, but arises from the actual irregularities existing at this crisis of the Jewish history, etc.” (Alex.).—Tr.].—Paul refers, in this connection, to a commandment of God ( Exodus 22:28 [quoted verbatim from the LXX. Exodus 22:27.—Tr.]), as one which he well knew and also revered—but without retracting his words [“The quotation—is simply tantamount to saying, ‘I know the law that you refer to, but I am not guilty of its violation.’ ” (Alex.).—Tr.]

Acts 23:6. I am a Pharisee.—At this point the apostle quickly changes the course which he had hitherto pursued; a calm defence, such as he had begun in Acts 23:1, found no favorable hearing. [“He had seen enough to be convinced that there was no prospect before this tribunal of a fair inquiry and a just decision.” (Conyb. and H. II:270).—Tr.]. The method which he now adopted in defending himself, and by which at least one party in the assembly before him might be won for his cause—the cause of Christian truth—was that of openly declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and that his faith was allied to the Pharisaic doctrine. [“Paul’s declaration that he was still a Pharisee, is as little untrue, as it was when he made it in Philippians 3:5. He describes himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other religious society than that of the Pharisees, and who, especially with regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, adhered to the creed of the Pharisees (in opposition to the whole system of Sadduceeism), after its truth had been so fully established in the Person of Christ Himself. His opposition to the doctrine of righteousness by the law, to the hypocrisy, etc, of the Pharisees, and his anti-Pharisaic labors, did not refer to the sect per se, but to its moral and other errors. As a Jew, he continued to be a Pharisee, and, as such, was an orthodox Jew, in opposition to the Naturalism of the Sadducees.” (Meyer).—Tr.].—When he calls himself “a son of Pharisees,” he refers to his father and ancestors, and implies that he was not the first of his family who adopted Pharisaic views and sentiments, but had already received them by inheritance. [A son of Pharisees, see note2, appended to the text.—Tr.]. He adds, that he was in reality placed before the tribunal for the sake of the hope and resurrection. The words περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, are commonly explained as an hendiadys, equivalent to “hope of the resurrection;” this is the opinion of Bengel, Meyer, Baumgarten. But a better and more complete sense may be obtained by taking each of the terms separately, thus: ‘for the sake of the hope,’ that is, the hope of redemption—of the Messianic promise given to Israel, ‘and for the sake of a resurrection of the dead.’ The latter words may then be directly referred to the resurrection of Jesus, whereas, if they are inseparably connected with ἐλπὶς, the future resurrection only can have been meant; and yet the resurrection of Jesus was, no doubt, the subject which primarily presented itself to the mind of the apostle.

Acts 23:7-9. And when he had so said.—The multitude [“the whole mass or body of the Sanhedrin itself, as distinguished from the parties into which it was divided” (Alex.).—Tr.] had previously united in assailing Paul; but it was now divided (ἐσχίσθη), so that the Pharisees and the Sadducees contended with each other. The contention grew louder and more violent (κραυγὴ μεγάλη, Acts 23:9; πολλή στάσις, Acts 23:10), insomuch that the Roman tribune, who was alarmed by the danger which threatened his prisoner, ordered the soldiers to conduct the latter away. Here Luke explains the difference between the doctrinal views of the Pharisees and those of the Sadducees, for the purpose of enabling his readers to comprehend the cause of the difficulty which had arisen between men, who had previously acted in concert. The latter denied, on the one hand, the resurrection, and, on the other, the existence of an angel or spirit. (The reading μηδὲ—μήτε should be retained, for critical reasons. [But see note3, appended to the text, above.—Tr.]. The former, μηδὲ, introduces a second class of conceptions, generically different from the preceding (ἀνάστασιν); the latter, μήτε, connects with it objects that are similar, in so far as πνεῦμα, an incorporeal spirit, and ἄγγελος are, essentially, homogeneous). The Pharisees, on the contrary, confess both. (Ἀμφότερα, i.e., in so far as the resurrection of the body, on the one hand, and the existence of a pure spirit, e. g., angels or departed souls, on the other, constitute two distinct categories). [On μηδὲ—μήτε in this passage, see Winer: Gram. N. T. § 556.—Alford, who differs from Lechler, says: “The former μήτε has been altered to μηδὲ to suit τὰ ἀμφότερα, because with ἀναστ. μήτε ἄγγ. μήτε πν. three things are mentioned;—whereas, if μηδέ is read, the two last are coupled, and form only one. But τὰ ἀμφ. is used of both things, the one being the resurrection, the other, the doctrine of spiritual existences; the two specified classes of the latter being combined generically.”—On the doctrines of the two sects, see Jos. Ant. xvii14. Bel. Jud. ii814.—Tr.]. Indeed, several scribes [see note4, appended to the text, above.—Tr.] of the Pharisaic party, espoused the cause of Paul. This party consisted both of learned, and of unlearned men; the former were the speakers. They spoke of Paul, personally, in favorable terms, as a man who could not be charged with any offence, and, moreover, expressed the opinion that it was quite possible that he had received a revelation. The sentence: εἰ - - ἄγγελος, terminates abruptly, [μὴ θεομαχῶμεν being cancelled by recent editors; see note5 appended to the text, above.—Tr.]; it either states, affirmatively, the condition, without adding the apodosis, or it is a question, the reply to which the opponents are expected to furnish. [“The question is an aposiopesis (comp. John 6:62; Romans 9:22,) implying, but not expressly saying, that if such are the facts, they are very serious.” (Meyer).—“Undoubtedly, a designed aposiopesis. A significant gesture or look towards the Sadducees expressed what was left unsaid.” (Hackett). Winer (Gram. § 64II.) does not decide whether the words were pronounced affirmatively or interrogatively, and adds that it is doubtful whether an aposiopesis is here to be assumed, or whether the sentence was simply left unfinished on account of a sudden interruption, comp. Acts 23:10.—“The sentence was left incomplete or unheard in the uproar.” (Conyb. and H. II:271). In all these cases the words μὴ θεομ. are assumed to be a later addition.—Tr.]. There can be no doubt that the words: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, refer to Paul’s statement in Acts 22:6 ff. respecting the appearance of Jesus, except that the Pharisees conceived of the appearance of an angel, or the manifestation of a spirit, in their own way.

Acts 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension.—The excitement continued to increase, until at length the tribune became apprehensive that Paul would be pulled in pieces by the parties (διασπασθῇ implies that while some took hold of him in order to protect him, others seized him in wrath, and thus he was dragged to and fro.). Hence he ordered that the military force which he commanded (στράτευμα) should descend from the tower, secure the person of the prisoner, employing even violent measures, if the assembly resisted, and Revelation -conduct him to the barracks. The commander, who did not desire to wound the feelings of the hierarchy, had, doubtless, directed the soldiery to remain in the tower, and had come to the meeting attended only by an orderly officer.

Acts 23:11. And the night following.—The revelation of Jesus Christ was probably made through the medium of a vision in a dream. Paul saw the Lord standing by him, and heard his cheering words of promise.—Εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ—εἰς ̔Ρώμην, i.e., he was directed to go to both cities, and address his testimony to (εἰς) both—the one being the religious, the other, the political capital of the world, at that time.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. When the apostle declares that he has a good conscience, he does not so much refer personally to himself as an individual, as rather to his calling as an apostle of the Gentiles. He was bound more solemnly than ever, when he stood in the presence of the highest court of the hierarchy of Israel, not to be ashamed of his office; and he did, openly and gladly, acknowledge it. He appealed to God (τῷ θεῷ)—to that divine grace and that divine approbation, which were decisive, even though men should sternly condemn his conduct. He had, no doubt, chiefly those years of his life in view, which followed his conversion; still, his testimony does not refer exclusively to that period; he says in substance that, as a Christian, he served God as sincerely and zealously, as at any previous period.

2. The distinction between the office and the person who is invested with it, was placed by Paul in a very clear light, both when he so quickly addressed Ananias, on being subjected to such ill treatment, Acts 23:3, and when he justified the words which he had uttered, Acts 23:5. The office required the president and every member of the court to observe the law with the strictest conscientiousness; but here the person, the office-bearer, most grossly violated the law, Acts 23:3. His personal act unquestionably justified any one who refused to recognize him as the holder of such a sacred office. This is the decision of the Holy Ghost, who applies the standard of right and truth to the person, however exalted his position may be, and recognizes no man as infallible, whether found in cathedra, or in the midst of a general church council.

3. The declaration of the apostle, Acts 23:6, that he was a Pharisee, is frequently represented as having been dictated by worldly Wisdom of Solomon, as it enabled him to divide the assembly, and to derive personal advantage from party interests. Divide et impera. But it was assuredly not his object to secure himself and his personal interests; he was influenced solely by a regard for the sacred cause of the truth, and for the honor of Christ. He availed himself Of the party distinctions existing between the Pharisees and Sadducees, simply as the means of obtaining a hearing for the truth, to which the minds of all had hitherto been entirely closed. And he gained this object by declaring that he was himself a Pharisee, and was brought before the tribunal on account of a doctrine which constituted the centre of gravity in the Pharisaic system. He pursues here the same course which he adopted when he combated paganism [see the author’s Exeg. notes, and Doct. views, Acts 17:16-34.—Tr.]; he selects those principles which are allied to Christianity—Israel’s hope of a Messiah, and faith in the resurrection of the dead. The result, indeed, shows that the Pharisees approached more nearly to the truth, than their opponents.

4. How far was Paul justified in saying that he had not merely been, but that he still was, a Pharisee? It has been supposed by some that his language involved an untruth. But when we reflect on the relation in which he stood to the whole system of the Sadducees (and it is precisely in view of their adverse positions that he speaks), it is evident that he could, with entire truth, assert that he had not changed, that he still was a Pharisee, that he held strict views of that holiness and righteousness which availed before God, and that, as to the hope of Israel and the resurrection, he was a firm believer; indeed, the richest blessing which existence could afford him, was the fulfilment of that earnest hope which the devout Pharisee entertained. And with respect to the points in which he differed from the Pharisees, he says to them, as he had once said to the pagan Athenians: “That which ye seek, but do not understand, I have; I know it; I declare it unto you.” In this sense the remark may be appropriately repeated, which Bengel makes in another connection, on Acts 23:1 : [In pristino statu, quanquam in errore versabatur, conscientiæ fuerat obsecutus, neque quicquam commiserat, cur in foro externo reus fieret.] Nunc, quum bona vetera non abjecit, sed meliora accepit, ex præsenti statu lux in pristinum sese refundebat.

5. The revelation of Christ, Acts 23:11, alike comforted and strengthened Paul. Even while he is involved in very great danger, a most brilliant prospect is opened before him. It had long ago appeared to him to be the highest object of life, to be permitted to preach the Gospel in Rome, Acts 19:21; and that permission was now granted.—All the purposes of the Redeemer in reference to him, as revealed at the period of his conversion, through Ananias, were rapidly approaching their fulfilment, although under the sign of the cross, seeing that he would be required to suffer much for the sake of the name of Jesus ( Acts 9:15-16).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Acts 23:1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council.—Such a glance Solomon had already cast on places of judgment, where ungodly men and wickedness prevail, Ecclesiastes 3:16; and such expressive glances are mentioned in the history of the life of our blessed Saviour, Luke 20:17; Mark 3:5; Mark 11:11. Paul’s heart was, no doubt, deeply affected as he surveyed the scene before him; he thought of the fall of his brethren according to the flesh, whose Great Council was governed by such principles; he thought, too, on his own election and calling, by which he had been delivered from the bonds of darkness, and in consequence of which he would never again be obliged to apply for letters and a commission ( Acts 9:3) to such a council. (Rieger).—I have lived [walked] in all good conscience before God until this day.—Those who are rebuked by their own conscience, do not usually lift up their eyes, as Paul here does, but cast them down. (Starke).—A good conscience before God, proceeds, I. From true faith in Christ, by which the remission of sins is obtained; II. From the assurance of divine grace and eternal life; III. From the renewal of the Holy Ghost, unto a new life and walk; IV. From the faithful performance of the duties of our calling, (id.).—It is true that many appeal to their good conscience, because no man can actually look into it; many, too, mistake a sleeping for a good conscience. (id.).

Acts 23:2. To smite him on the mouth.—In this mode of suffering, too, Paul was an image of the suffering Jesus, who, in the days of his sorrow, was smitten on the cheek because he witnessed a good confession ( 1 Timothy 6:13) before the high priest ( John 18:22). (Ap. Past.).—How many shameful blows on the face devout believers still receive, partly, by beingreviled, partly, by not being allowed to speak the truth, and to rebuke the wicked ways of the world! Job 16:10; 1 Kings 22:24; Acts 5:28. (Starke).

Acts 23:3. God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.—Here was one of those whited sepulchres mentioned by the Lord Himself, Matthew 23:27.—We have here a striking instance of an unconverted teacher. Ananias held the sacred office of high priest, and, perhaps, when viewed externally, his gray hair and white priestly garments, gave him even a venerable appearance; but internally, his heart was full of rage and deadly hatred, of injustice and tyranny. Our sacred offices, ecclesiastical titles, and priestly dignities, are nothing else than a white lime which conceals the internal uncleanness of the carnal heart. But no attempt at concealment is of avail before God, and even in the presence of men the loose lime sometimes fails to adhere. (Ap. Past.).—No doubt when Paul’s conduct is compared with the calmness, gentleness, and self-denial of Jesus ( John 18:23), his warmth of temper becomes evident. Still, we ought not to be too rigid in forming a judgment respecting the apostle. It is true that in our excessively refined age, the servants of Christ cannot commit a greater sin than when they exhibit impetuosity; the remark is at once made that they should have been more circumspect. This may be true; but then, let it be considered that they have exposed themselves to every danger, and, weak as they are, chose their position at the front of the army. It is surely better to be unskilful advocates of the Lord, than, through excessive caution, to resign the whole work to others. It may be also remarked, that if Luther, for instance, had been in Paul’s place, he would have spoken with far more severity. (Williger).

Acts 23:5. I wist not that he was the high priest.—It ought to be observed that it was quite possible that, amid the tumult, Paul should not have known or recognized the person of the high priest; for, at that time, the office had been exposed to such vicissitudes, that it could not always be known who was really invested with it. Hence Paul might have regarded. Ananias as a Jewish elder and Judges, without actually knowing that he was at that time the presiding high priest. However, even if it should be assumed that Paul did know him, his words could not have been intended to imply more than that, while he revered the office, he rebuked the person who so unworthily administered it. (Ap. Past.).—It would, however, be an abuse to quote the conduct of Paul for the purpose of justifying violent human passions, or the maxims of a false political Wisdom of Solomon, Titus 1:7. (Starke).—If St. Paul in this manner assails the priest, who was appointed by the law of Moses, why should I hesitate to assail these painted bishops and masks that come from the pope, without any authority derived from God or from men? (Luther).

Acts 23:6. I am a Pharisee, etc.—Here Paul stands as a sheep in the midst of wolves; he is, therefore, wise as a serpent, Matthew 10:16. (Starke).—And yet, he did not renounce the harmlessness of the dove. He still belonged to the Pharisees, not only on account of his education and earlier life, but also on account of his present position as a believer, in so far as, in contradistinction from the frivolity of the Sadducees, he maintained, with the Pharisees, the authority of the divine law, and believed in the resurrection. This was the common ground occupied by them and by him, and he desired to guide them still further, until he had conducted them to the Gospel.—The hope of the fathers, fulfilled by the appearance of Christ; and, the resurrection of the dead, sealed by the resurrection of Christ—the two fundamental themes of the preaching of Paul. (Ap. Past.).

Acts 23:7. And the multitude was divided.—Here again we see the wisdom of God, in patiently permitting so many forms of religion to exist. If the whole world were of one mind, the truth would soon be crushed. But now, while one sect contends with another, divine truth finds an opportunity to speak. (Ap. Past.).

Acts 23:9. We find no evil in this man.—Human passions were violently inflamed; nevertheless the wisdom of God accomplished its great design. He rules in the midst of his enemies [ Psalm 110:2.]. Some—says Paul ( Philippians 1:16; Philippians 1:18),—preach Christ, who are influenced by hostile feelings; still, if Christ is preached, whatever the motive may be, I will rejoice. (Ap. Past.).

Acts 23:10. And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing, etc.—When the people of God are in great distress, He can always send them guardian angels, even though these should be heathen soldiers. (Starke).—It may easily be conceived how great a stumbling-block this division was to the heathen officer. (Rieger).—And still, in our day, when Christians, in their religious disputes, pull one another in pieces, their conduct must give offence to heathens.

Acts 23:11. And the night following, the Lord stood by him.—The danger was great, but the comfort, too, was great. (Starke).—The consolatory words of the Lord, must, on this occasion, have been of special value to the apostle. He may, himself, have felt but little satisfied with the witness which he had borne in Jerusalem, partly, on account of the result, and partly, on account of the manner of his defence. Such thoughts and doubts, to which, more than to any other cause, the sleepless nights of a servant of God are due, were dispelled by the words of the Lord: ‘Be of good cheer; I am satisfied with thy testimony; thou hast done what thou couldst do; the result did not depend on thee; thou hast not interfered with my ways and purposes; thy witness in Jerusalem is at an end; now go to Rome.’ (Williger).—The rest of the book, after Acts 23, is occupied with the apostolical testimony which Paul bore in Rome. Now if the defenders of the primacy of Peter could have found all these statements, or even only the half of them, made in reference to Peter, what a great stress they would lay on the circumstance! (Bengel).

On the whole section, Acts 23:1-11.

The enemies of the Gospel, condemning themselves: I. By the injustice of which they are guilty, Acts 23:2 ff.; II. By their internal disputes, Acts 23:6 ff. (Lisco).

The hope of the resurrection, the crown of Christianity: I. The force of Paul’s defence depends on the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection; II. That doctrine is sustained by the sure foundation of divine truth. (id.).

The excited feeling which Paul displayed before the council: I. The cause, Acts 23:1-2; II. The manner in which he controlled it, Acts 23:3-5. (id.).

The true mode of combining the simplicity of the children of God with the wisdom of the children of this world: I. The simplicity of the children of God, by a candid confession of our infirmities, Acts 23:3-5; II. The wisdom of the children of this world, by availing ourselves of those circumstances by which our object may be gained, Acts 23:6-10. (id.).

The comfort of a good conscience, Acts 23:1; I. The source from which it proceeds; (a) justification by faith; (b) earnestness in following holiness [ Hebrews 12:14]; II. The support which it affords: (a) it enables us to labor with diligence; (b) it enables us to suffer with hope and joy.

Paul’s defence before the council, or, The true spirit of a witness: a spirit, I. Of manly courage, Acts 23:1-3; II. Of childlike humility, Acts 23:4-5; III. Of calmness and prudence, Acts 23:6; and, at the same time, IV. Of candor and simplicity, Acts 23:6, (for Paul speaks nothing but the truth).

Even when a servant of God exhibits nothing but carnal zeal, he shows what manner of spirit he is of [ Luke 9:55]: I. By the cause which provokes his zeal (it is iniquity that arouses him, and justice and truth for which he is zealous). II. By the manner in which that zeal manifests itself (even in anger, he forgets neither his own dignity, nor his reverence for God). III. By the victory which he gains over it (he confesses it, when his composure is restored, and firmly controls it.—Parallel cases in Luther’s life and writings).

Jesus and Paul before the Great Council, or, The Master and the disciple before unjust Judges: I. The points of resemblance between them; (a) both are undeservedly exposed to shame, ( Acts 23:2, and comp. John 18:22); (b) both maintain the dignity which heaven had bestowed ( Acts 23:3, and John 18:23). II. The points in which the Master is above the disciple; (a) the holy self-consciousness of Jesus ( John 18:20-21), is more than Paul’s good conscience ( Acts 23:1); (b) the gentle reply of Jesus ( John 18:23), is more heavenly than Paul’s human vehemence ( Acts 23:3).

The best advocates of a servant of God before the tribunal of an unjust world: I. The comfort of a good conscience in his own breast, Acts 23:1; II. The curse of a bad cause in the ranks of his enemies, Acts 23:3; Acts 23:6-9; III. The sympathy of unprejudiced and honest men of the world, Acts 23:10; IV. The gracious testimony of a righteous Judges, in heaven, Acts 23:11.

The call from heaven: ‘Be of good cheer, Paul!’, a source of comfort for all the faithful servants of Christ: I. It consoles them when the world unjustly condemns. II. It indemnifies them, when their office exposes them to reproach; III. It soothes them when their own conscience is troubled; IV. It endows them with strength for future contests (‘Thou must bear witness also at Rome.’).

[ Acts 23:8. Faith in the invisible world: I. The invisible world; (a) the future judgment; (b) the eternal happiness of the redeemed; (c) the eternal misery of the impenitent. II. The grounds of our faith in it; (a) reason sustains it; (b) the word of God establishes it; (c) the resurrection of Christ confirms and illustrates it. III. The influence of that faith; (a) on the mind and heart; (b) on the conscience; (c) on the outward walk. —Tr.].

Footnotes