Acts 23 commentary

ACTS 23 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said,
“My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in
all good conscience to this day.”
BAR ES, "And Paul, earnestly beholding - ᅊτενίσας 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 - τሬ Θεሬ 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.
CLARKE,"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.
GILL, "And Paul earnestly beholding the council,.... Fastening his eyes upon
them, looking wistly and intently at them, and thereby discovering a modest
cheerfulness, and a becoming boldness, confidence, and intrepidity, as being not
conscious of any guilt, and well assured of the goodness of his cause:
said, men and brethren; see Act_22:1.
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day; not only from the
time of his conversion, but throughout the whole of his life; for though, strictly speaking,
there is no good conscience but what is awakened by the Spirit of God, and is
unprincipled by his grace, and is purged from sin by the blood of Christ; in which sense
he could only have a good conscience, since he believed in Christ; yet whereas in his
state of unregeneracy, and even while he was a blasphemer, and persecutor, he did not
act contrary to the dictates of his conscience, but according to them, in which his view
was to the glory of God, and the honour of his law; he therefore says he lived before God,
or unto God, in all good conscience, though an erroneous and mistaken one; he thought
he ought to do what he did; and what he did, he did with a zeal for God though it was not
according to knowledge: besides, the apostle has here respect to his outward moral
conversation, which, before and after conversion, was very strict, and even blameless, at
least unblemished before men; nobody could charge him with any notorious crime,
though he did not live without sin in the sight of the omniscient God.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "Act_23:1-10. Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrim divides the rival
factions, from whose violence the commandant has the apostle removed into the
fortress.
Paul, earnestly beholding the council — with a look of conscious integrity and
unfaltering courage, perhaps also recognizing some of his early fellow pupils.
I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day — The word has
an indirect reference to the “polity” or “commonwealth of Israel,” of which he would
signify that he had been, and was to that hour, an honest and God-fearing member.
CALVI , "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. otwithstanding, 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.
−
COFFMA , "The period of Paul's imprisonment began with his arrest and rescue
by Claudius Lysias, as recorded in the last chapter; and here we have the second of
five pleas which Paul made in the various situations developing from his being a
prisoner. This imprisonment was to last until the conclusion of Acts.
B. PAUL'S SECO D DEFE SE: HIS PLEA BEFORE THE SA HEDRI
And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God
in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them
that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (Acts 23:1-2)
The council ... This was the historic court of the Hebrews called the Sanhedrin,
including perhaps some of the very men who had condemned Jesus to death. "They
no longer met in the famous hall called the Lishcath Haggazzith,"[1] in the sacred
area where no Gentile might have gone, but in a more public place, as indicated by

the soldiers having access to it a bit later.
In all good conscience until this day ... Paul repeatedly affirmed that he had always
maintained a good conscience in the sight of God (1 Corinthians 4:4), even declaring
that "from his forefathers" he had worshiped God with a pure conscience (2
Timothy 1:3). This "is an unanswerable argument against the oft-repeated theory"
that all religious actions are right, just so long as one is sincere in what he does.[2]
For a more extended comment on "Conscience," see my Commentary on Hebrews,
Hebrews 9:14; and for a full sermon on "Higher and Lower Courts," see in my
book, The Gospel in Gotham, pp. 17-25. Conscience is important to every man; but
the value of conscience as a guide is determined by the kind of teaching upon which
it is founded. Jesus himself told the Twelve that "Whosoever killeth you shall think
that he offereth service unto God" (John 16:2). Ranked in the ascending order of
their authority: (1) public opinion, (2) conscience, and (3) the word of God are the
three tribunals before which every man is judged.
Ananias ... His ordering Paul to be struck in the mouth was an arrogant and illegal
display of prejudice and unscrupulous hatred toward Paul. The order was probably
obeyed the instant it was given. "He was one of the most disgraceful profaners of the
sacred office of the high priest."[3] Hervey questioned whether or not Ananias was
actually high priest at this time, because "Josephus speaks of a Jonathan who was
high priest during the government of Felix."Acts 2p. 211.">[4] Besides that, as
Lewis pointed out, the ew Testament usage of "high priest" has three meanings:
(1) the man in office, (2) one who had previously held it, and (3) a member of the
privileged family from whom the high priests were chosen.[5]
This Ananias was a son of edebaeus and had acquired the office from Chalcis, a
brother of Herod Agrippa I, in 47 A.D. and held it (probably with some
interruptions) until 59 AD.[6] He was an appropriate successor to those who had
murdered the Lord.
Regarding the council meeting in which this defense of Paul occurred, it may not be
thought of as any formal gathering of the Sanhedrin with the high priest in charge.
Lysias was in charge of this meeting. Ramsay said: "This meeting was convoked by
a Roman military officer, and was not a formal assembly presided over by a high
priest in official dress."[7] Any or all of the circumstances noted above may have
accounted for Paul's failure to recognize Ananias as high priest.
[1] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 295.
[2] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: College Press), 2p. 72.
[3] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
Publishers, 1954), p. 449.
Acts 2p. 211.">[4] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Acts 2p. 211.
[5] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 169.
[6] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 449.
[7] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 280.
COKE, "Acts 23:1. Men and brethren, I have lived, &c.— St. Paul could not intend
by this to intimate, that he thought himself free from guilt while persecuting the
Christians, since he so expressly declares the contrary elsewhere. See 1 Timothy
1:13. 1 Corinthians 15:9. Galatians 1:13. He was only examined with respect to his
conduct as a Christian; and therefore it would not have been pertinent here to refer
to his conduct, while a persecuting Jew; though it was indeed true, that he did not
then act against his conscience, how criminal soever he was in suffering it to
continue misinformed. The plain sense of the passage is, "That his conscience, when
examined as in the sight of God, with respect to what they alleged against him, did
not charge him with any known and deliberate contradictions to its dictates:" and
so it was, in effect, a solemn and very pertinent appeal to the Searcher of all hearts,
that he had not devoted himself to the service of the gospel, in which he was now
engaged, from any mean and dishonourable principle, but was fully convinced of
the truth of it, and therefore was prepared to abide all extremities in its defence.
Well might there be, in such a case, a folly of joy arising in an upright heart, from a
consciousness through grace of its own integrity, amid such violent calumnies as
were now advanced against him.
ELLICOTT, "(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 ote on the kindred substantive in Philippians 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” (2
Timothy 1:3); that a “good conscience” is the end of the commandment (1 Timothy
1:5); or, again, recognising the power of conscience even among the heathen
(Romans 2:15). In the phrase “I know nothing by myself,” i.e., “I am conscious of no
fault” (see ote on 1 Corinthians 4:4), we have a like reference to its authority.

Comp. also Acts 24:16; Romans 13:5; 1 Corinthians 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.
BE SO , "Acts 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.”
CO STABLE, "Evidently Paul intended to give his testimony again to the
Sanhedrin. He addressed this body using the formal address common among Jews
(lit. "Men brothers," Gr. Andres adelphoi). He identified himself as a Jew since his
loyalty to Judaism was in question.
Paul frequently claimed to have lived with a clear conscience before God (cf. Acts
20:18-21; Acts 20:26-27; Acts 24:16; Romans 15:19; Romans 15:23; Philippians 3:6;
2 Timothy 4:7). Paul referred to the conscience about 23 times in his epistles. Here
this claim meant that he believed that nothing he had done, which he was about to
relate, was contrary to the will of God contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Specifically his Christian beliefs and conduct did not compromise his Jewish
heritage.
"He was not, of course, claiming sinlessness, nor was he referring to the inner
spiritual conflicts of Romans 7. The reference was to the externals of his life, and the
blamelessness of his conduct as measured by the demands of the Law (cf.
Philippians 3:4-6)." [ ote: Kent, p. 168, footnote 19.]
PETT, "Paul began his defence fearlessly and immediately by declaring that he
lived before God, and that he sought to do it with a good conscience. Compare here
Acts 24:16; 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:19; 1 Peter 3:16; 1 Peter 3:21. He wanted
the court to know immediately that he was a man who treated his conscience
seriously and lived in accordance with it. And that as a Pharisee he had no grounds
for thinking that he had failed in his obligations (see Philippians 3:7-9). However,
somehow this caused offence. Possibly his method of address was not considered
deferential enough, or possibly it was because he was considered to have
commenced his defence too precipitately. The council may have felt that he was too
forward and should wait to be asked. Either of these would partly explain (but not
excuse) the next action.
BARCLAY 1-10, "There was a certain audacious recklessness about Paul's conduct
before the Sanhedrin; he acted like a man who knew that he was burning his boats.
Even his very beginning was a challenge. To say Brethren was to put himself on an
equal footing with the court; for the normal beginning when addressing the
Sanhedrin was, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel." When the high priest
ordered Paul to be struck, he himself was transgressing the Law, which said, "He
who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God." So Paul
rounds upon him, calling him a white-washed wall. To touch a dead body was for an
Israelite to incur ceremonial defilement; it was therefore the custom to white-wash
tombs so that none might be touched by mistake. So Paul is in effect calling the high
priest a white-washed tomb.
It was indeed a crime to speak evil of a ruler of the people (Exodus 22:28). Paul

knew perfectly well that Ananias was high priest. But Ananias was notorious as a
glutton, a thief, a rapacious robber and a quisling in the Roman service. Paul's
answer really means, "This man sitting there--I never knew a man like that could be
high priest of Israel." Then Paul made a claim that he knew would set the
Sanhedrin by the ears. In the Sanhedrin there were Pharisees and Sadducees whose
beliefs were often opposed. The Pharisees believed in the minutiae of the oral Law;
the Sadducees accepted only the written Law. The Pharisees believed in
predestination; the Sadducees believed in free-will. The Pharisees believed in angels
and spirits; the Sadducees did not. Above all, the Pharisees believed in the
resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees did not.
So Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and that it was for the hope of resurrection from
the dead he was on trial. As a result the Sanhedrin was split in two; and in the
violent argument that followed Paul was nearly torn in pieces. To save him from
violence the commander had to take him back to the barracks again.
HAWKER 1-5, "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I
have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day. (2) And the high priest
Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (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? (4) And they that stood
by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? (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.
While we cannot but admire the faithfulness, and intrepidity, of the great Apostle, in
thus challenging his enemies, and contending for his integrity; we must not strain Paul’s
words too far, as though he meant to say, that he had always lived without guilt upon his
conscience before God. This was far from the Apostle’s meaning. All he intended to
assert, indeed all he did assert, was, that his conscience could not reproach him with
having done anything to expose him to their laws, or their just displeasure. It is a point
well worth attending to, in our estimate of men and things, to observe, that in the
Scripture account of holy men, and of their integrity, nothing more is implied, than that
in life, they conduct themselves in all the departments of it, uprightly, and with a good
conscience towards men. They draw a line of distinction, between the judgment of men,
and the tribunal of God. Thus David calls upon the Lord to plead his cause, with
unrighteous judges. judge me, (said he,) 0 Lord, according to my righteousness, and
according to mine integrity that is in me, Psa_7:8. But, when David contemplated God’s
tribunal, and not man’s, he cried out: Enter not into judgment with thy servant, 0 Lord,
for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psa_150:6. And thus, in like manner,
other holy men of old, considered the vast difference: See Job_27:5-7 with Job_9:20-21.
So that Paul’s justifying himself in this place, is wholly with an eye to human laws, in the
transactions of one man with another.
The passionate behavior of Ananias, and the hasty retort of Paul, both proved the
common Adam-nature to which they both belonged. Though grace had renewed the
mind of Paul, yet the unrenewed body had all the old man of sin remaining! So Paul said,
and so all the children of God know, by experience, Rom_7:23, to the end. But, though
Paul spake hastily, yet there was truth in what he said: and it should seem to have been
somewhat prophetical. Sinners are smitten of the Lord, when judgment overtakes them.
And the unjust judge can expect no other. Reader! do not overlook the humble
acknowledgment of the Apostle, of his error, by haste and inadvertency. True grace, will

always induce such effects.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 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 man’s look, nor lions. In Paul’s 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 apostle’s 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.)
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 missionary’s
schoolmates and countrymen; but the change only subjects him to ruder insults and
more deadly perils.
2. Bad men’s impatience of real goodness is not uncommon. The prisoner looked
straight into the faces of these councillors. If they had expected a criminal’s
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 priest’s command. To this mad bull Paul’s “good conscience” was the
red rag. Just so was it that David’s 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 “God’s 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.
Paul’s 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. Life’s 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 God’s care and love. (H. A. Edson, D. D.)
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
Paul’s 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.)
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 God’s eye is constantly upon him.
3. Paul had that best of all possessions, an approving conscience. Therefore Paul was
confident and independent.
4. Paul’s words enraged Ananias. Nothing arouses a bad man’s anger sooner than a
reminder of a good man’s 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.)
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 Paul’s
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. Christ’s 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
one’s 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 God’s 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 moment’s 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 Christian’s conduct. Paul’s words started a
dissension which instantly divided their forces. Paul’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s
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 Christ’s, 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
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 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 man’s 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 jockey’s tastes and a bulldog’s 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 Paul’s? 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 Paul’s is a rare excellence. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.—
Whited walls
Paul’s characterisation recalls at once our Lord’s 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 God’s 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.—
Paul’s 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.)
Paul’s 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 man’s 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.)
2 At this the high priest Ananias ordered those

standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth.
BAR ES, "And the high priest Ananias - This Ananias was doubtless the son of
Nebedinus (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 5, section 3), who was high priest when
Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of Syria. He was sent bound to Rome by
Quadratus, at the same time with Ananias, the prefect of the temple, that they might give
an account of their conduct to Claudius Caesar (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 6,
section 2). But in consequence of the intercession of Agrippa the younger, they were
dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. Ananias, however, was not restored to the office of
high priest. For, when Felix was governor of Judea, this office was filled by Jonathan,
who succeeded Ananias I (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 10). Jonathan was slain in
the temple itself, by the instigation of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for the
purpose. This murder is thus described by Josephus (Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section
5): “Felix bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him
admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest complaints
should be made against him, since he had procured of Caesar the appointment of Felix
as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Felix contrived a method by which he might get rid
of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one
of Jonathan’s most faithful friends, of the name Doras, to bring the robbers upon him,
and to put him to death.”
This was done in Jerusalem. The robbers came into the city as if to worship God, and
with daggers, which they had concealed under their garments, they put him to death.
After the death of Jonathan, the office of high priest remained vacant until King Agrippa
appointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office (Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 8,
section 8). It was during this interval, while the office of high priest was vacant, that the
events which are here recorded took place. Ananias was then at Jerusalem; and as the
office of high priest was vacant, and as he was the last person who had borne the office,
it was natural that he should discharge, probably by common consent, its duties, so far,
at least, as to preside in the Sanhedrin. Of these facts Paul would be doubtless apprised;
and hence, what he said Act_23:5 was strictly true, and is one of the evidences that
Luke’s history accords precisely with the special circumstances which then existed.
When Luke here calls Ananias “the high priest,” he evidently intends not to affirm that
he was actually such, but to use the word, as the Jews did, as applicable to one who had
been in that office, and who, on that occasion, when the office was vacant, performed its
duties.
To smite him on the mouth - To stop him from speaking; to express their
indignation at what he had said. The anger of Ananias was aroused because Paul
affirmed that all he had done had been with a good conscience. Their feelings had been
excited to the utmost; they regarded him as certainly guilty; they regarded him as an
apostate; and they could not bear it that he, with such coolness and firmness, declared
that all his conduct had been under the direction of a good conscience. The injustice of
the command of Ananias is apparent to all. A similar instance of violence occurred on
the trial of the Saviour, Joh_18:22.
CLARKE,"The high priest, Ananias - There was a high priest of this name, who

was sent a prisoner to Rome by Quadratus, governor of Syria, to give an account of the
part he took in the quarrel between the Jews and the Samaritans; see Joseph. Antiq. lib.
xx. cap. 6, s. 8; but whether he ever returned again to Jerusalem, says Dr. Lightfoot, is
uncertain; still more uncertain whether he was ever restored to the office of high priest;
and most uncertain of all whether he filled the chair when Paul pleaded his cause, which
was some years after Felix was settled in the government. But Krebs has proved that this
very Ananias, on being examined at Rome, was found innocent, returned to Jerusalem,
and was restored to the high priesthood; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 9, s. 2; but of his
death I find nothing certain. See Krebs on this place, (Observat. in Nov. Testament. e
Flavio Josepho), who successfully controverts the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, mentioned at
the beginning of this note. There was one Ananias, who is said to have perished in a
tumult raised by his own son about five years after this time; see Jos. Antiq. lib. x. cap. 9.
War, lib. ii. cap. 17.
To smite him on the mouth - Because he professed to have a good conscience,
while believing on Jesus Christ, and propagating his doctrine.
GILL, "And the high priest Ananias,.... This could not be the same with Annas, the
father-in-law of Caiaphas, but rather Ananus his son; though this is more generally
thought to be Ananias the son of Nebedaeus, whom Josephus (m) speaks of. There is one
R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests, often spoken of in the Jewish writings (n), who lived
about these times, and was killed at the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the times of
King Agrippa, there was one Chanina, or Ananias the priest, who was a Sadducee (o);
and from the number of Sadducees in this sanhedrim, who very likely were the creatures
of the high priest, one would be tempted to think he might be the same with this: who
commanded them that stood by him: that is, by Paul, who were nearest to him,
some of the members of the sanhedrim; unless they should be thought to be some of the
high priest's officers, or servants, as in Joh_18:22 though if they were, one would think
they would be so called: these he ordered
to smite him on the mouth: or give him a slap on the face, by way of contempt, and
as if he had spoken what ought not to be said, and in order to silence him; the reason of
which might be, either because Paul did not directly address him, and give him such
flattering titles as he expected, or because he set out with such declarations of his
innocence, and spotless behaviour, and with so much courage and boldness.
HE RY, "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 (1Ki_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 (Son_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.
JAMISO , "
the high priest ... commanded ... to smite him on the mouth — a method of
silencing a speaker common in the East to this day [Hacket]. But for a judge thus to treat
a prisoner on his “trial,” for merely prefacing his defense by a protestation of his
integrity, was infamous.
CALVI , "2.And the chief priest. Luke’s narration seemeth not to agree with the
usual history; for Josephus writeth thus concerning the high priests of that time,
that Quadratus, deputy [proconsul] of Syria, deposing Cumanus from the
government of Judea, commanded him to answer for himself before Caesar, and
sent Ananias, the highest priest, bound with him, into whose place who was chosen
he maketh no mention, saving that it is likely that Jonathas had the honor given
him, who, as he reporteth, was afterward slain by the subtilty and treachery of
Felix, deputy [prefect] of Judea, who succeeded Cumanus; for when he had
oftentimes told Felix part of his mind, and he could not away with the constancy of
the man, he made a compact with one Doras, that he should privily convey in
murderers to slay him. Then, as the same Josephus doth witness, king Agrippa
made Ismael, the son of Phebeus, priest. But when he was sent by the people to
Rome about a certain suit, and was kept there by Popea, wife to ero, Agrippa
putteth in his place one Josephus, whose name was Chabus, the son of Simon. But
immediately being also weary of him, he appointeth Ananus, the son of Ananus, to
be high priest. −
Furthermore, he saith that this last thing happened at such time as, after the death
of Festus, Albinus did succeed him. And I see not why some call this Ananus
Ananias. That hath indeed some color, in that he is called a Pharisee; also in that it
is said that he was bold and stout, who, without any lawful authority, caused James,
the Lord’s brother, to be stoned. But if we give credence to Josephus, he could not
be that Ananias of whom mention is made in this place by Luke, who was then made
priest, when many years were past and gone, after that Felix departed out of the
province. −
I have another conjecture in my head. For there flourished during all that time one
Ananias, an high priest, who, excepting the title of honor, was almost chief in the
order. And because Josephus leaveth some void time between Ananias and Ismael, it
may be that this man had the room of the highest priest in the meantime. − (522)

But though this were not so, it appeareth out of Josephus, that Ananias, who died
when the city was besieged, was, in the reign of Claudius Caesar and ero, equal in
dignity with the chief priests which were then. −
Yea, his authority is so highly extolled, as if he had the chief government, howsoever
other men did bear the ensigns of honor. Again, he is called αρχιερευς confusedly, −
(523) as those who were the highest priests. ow, let the readers ponder and
consider, whether the word αρχιερευς doth not rather signify in this place chief than
highest, as it doth in many other places. For the Evangelists do everywhere call the
priests who were of the course of Aaron αρχιερεις, that they may distinguish them
from the Levites, who had a more inferior degree of priesthood. Moreover, it may be
that that Ananias, who was counted stout and courageous, did supply the high
priest’s room in his absence. Those things which we have recited out of Josephus are
recorded partly in the Twentieth Book of Antiquities, from the third chapter until
the eight; partly in the Second Book of the Wars of the Jews. −
He commanded him to be smitten. We see that there was in this assembly great
distemperature. For whereas the high priest was in such rage, that he commanded
Paul to be smitten for nothing, he did it undoubtedly with the consent of all the rest;
yea, to the end he might win the favor of mad men. The Lord doth suffer the wicked
to be so carried away by Satan, that they fall from all show of equity and
temperance. For hypocrites would fain bear some show of moderation; and
undoubtedly this high priest went about to pretend such gravity as did beseem his
person. But the Lord did pluck this visure [mask] from his face, so that there was
not found in him so much as the modesty of a mean man, but he poured out his
furious force like a beast. −
In the mean season, we see what horrible and filthy disorder there was at that day in
the Church. Ananias, who was the chief of the council, whereas he ought to have
stayed others by his gravity, forgetting all modesty, he enforceth them unto violence
and savageness. Therefore they had at that day no regard of discipline, but there
remained among them confused barbarism. And no marvel, for they had estranged
themselves from God; they had most reproachfully rejected Christ; all their religion
was set to sale. Therefore it was meet that they should run headlong into furious
madness, which might be loathsome even among profane men, that they might be
punished in their own shame for their ungodliness. −
“ Intermedio illo tempore,” during the intermediate time.
“ Promiscue,” indiscriminately.
COKE, "Acts 23:2. The high priest Ananias— He was the son of ebedoeus, and by
his station head of the sanhedrim. He had before this been sent in chains to Rome, to
give an account to Claudius Caesar of his behaviour in the quarrel which had
happened between the Jews and Samaritans, during the government of Cumanus in
Judea; but, being acquitted, he returned to Jerusalem, and still enjoyed the dignity
of the high-priesthood,probablyattheintercessionof Agrippa the younger. Full of

prejudice against St. Paul and the gospel doctrine, he condemned the apostle's
speech, as too boasting and arrogant; and ordered some of the apparitors who stood
by St. Paul to smite him on the mouth, for taking upon him to glory so much, though
he had in reality used only a well grounded and just defence. But St. Paul could not
wonder at such cruel and unrighteous treatment, when he considered that so had
the false prophet Zedekiah dealt with the true prophet Micaiah; so had the high-
priest Pashur smitten the prophetJeremiah; and, what is more, in like manner had
the wicked Jews struck our Lord, when he had behaved with the greatest modesty
and innocenc
ELLICOTT, "2) The high priest Ananias.—See ote on Acts 22:5. The son of
ebedæus was conspicuous for his cruelty and injustice, and had been sent to Rome
as a prisoner to take his trial before Claudius (A.D. 52). He had been acquitted, or at
least released, and had returned to Judæa. To him this assertion of a life so utterly
unlike his own seemed almost like a personal insult. He fitted the cap, and raged
with a brutal cruelty which reminds us of Jeffreys’ treatment of Baxter.
CO STABLE, "Paul's claim to uprightness so incensed Ananias that he ordered a
soldier to strike Paul on the mouth. Probably Ananias, who was a Sadducee, had
already made up his mind that Paul, who had been a Pharisee, was guilty. An officer
of the high priest had also struck Jesus as he testified before the Sanhedrin (cf. John
18:20-23).
Ananias became high priest in A.D. 47. The Jewish high priesthood was a political
appointment during Rome's occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a
despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should have gone to the
ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor
summoned him to Rome on charges of being involved in a bloody battle between
Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very wealthy and
resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very
pro-Roman, and the Jews finally assassinated him in their uprising against Rome in
A.D. 66, nine years after Paul stood before him. [ ote: Josephus, The Wars . . .,
2:12:6; 2:17:6, 9; Antiquities of . . ., 20:5:2; 20:6:2; 20:9:2, 4. Cf. Wiersbe, 1:494.]
PETT, "The chairman of the council, the High Priest Ananias, then commanded
that he be smitten on the mouth. This was possibly a preemptory reminder of who
was in charge. A modern judge would have sternly told him that he must wait until
he was called on. Or it may have been in order to suggest that he was not treating
the aristocracy with sufficient deference. ormally they would be addressed as,
"Rulers of the people and elders of Israel." Or perhaps it was just in order to
indicate that he must not be so arrogant in front of his betters. Ananias was himself
an arrogant man and full of his own self-importance, and by this demonstrated his
arrogance and unfitness to be presiding. But prisoners, whether guilty or not, were
often treated contemptuously by courts, and we have here another example of the
way in which Paul was seen as ‘following in His steps’, for Jesus had been treated in
a similar way (compare John 18:22). It is the way the Master went, shall not the
servant read it still?

3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you
whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me
according to the law, yet you yourself violate the
law by commanding that I be struck!”
BAR ES, "God shall smite thee - God shall punish thee. God is just; and he will
not suffer such a manifest violation of all the laws of a fair trial to pass unavenged. This
was a remarkably bold and fearless declaration. Paul was surrounded by enemies. They
were seeking his life. He must have known that such declarations would only excite their
wrath and make them more thirsty for his blood. That he could thus address the
president of the council was not only strongly characteristic of the man, but was also a
strong proof that he was conscious of innocence, and that justice was on his side. This
expression of Paul, “God shall smite thee,” is not to be regarded in the light of an
imprecatio, or as an expression of angry feeling, but of a prediction, or of a strong
conviction on the mind of Paul that a man so hypocritical and unjust as Ananias was
could not escape the vengeance of God. Ananias was slain, with Hezekiah his brother,
during the agitation that occurred in Jerusalem when the robbers, or Sicarii, under their
leader, Manahem, had taken possession of the city. He attempted to conceal himself in
an aqueduct, but was drawn forth and killed. See Josephus, Jewish Wars, book 2,
chapter 17, section 8. Thus, Paul’s prediction was fulfilled.
Thou whited wall - This is evidently a proverbial expression, meaning thou
hypocrite. His hypocrisy consisted in the fact that while he pretended to sit there to do
justice, he commanded the accused to be smitten in direct violation of the Law, thus
showing that his character was not what he professed it to be, but that of one determined
to carry the purposes of his party and of his own feelings. Our Saviour used a similar
expression to describe the hypocritical character of the Pharisees Mat_23:27, when he
compares them to whited sepulchres. A whited wall is a wall or enclosure that is covered
with lime or gypsum, and that thus appears to be different from what it is, and thus aptly
describes the hypocrite. Seneca (De Providentia, chapter 6) uses a similar figure to
describe hypocrites: “They are sordid, base, and like their walls adorned only externally.”
See also Seneca, Epis. 115.
For sittest thou ... - The Law required that justice should be done, and in order to
that, it gave every man an opportunity of defending himself. See the note, Joh_7:51.
Compare Pro_18:13; Lev_19:15-16; Exo_23:1-2; Deu_19:15, Deu_19:18.
To judge me after the law - As a judge, to hear and decide the case according to the
rules of the Law of Moses.
Contrary to the law - In violation of the Law of Moses Lev_19:35, “Ye shall do no
unrighteousness in judgment.”

CLARKE,"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall - Thou hypocrite! who sittest
on the seat of judgment, pretending to hear and seriously weigh the defense of an
accused person, who must in justice and equity be presumed to be innocent till he is
proved to be guilty; and, instead of acting according to the law, commandest me to be
smitten contrary to the law, which always has the person of the prisoner under its
protection; nor ever suffers any penalty to be inflicted but what is prescribed as the just
punishment for the offense. As if he had said: “Thinkest thou that God will suffer such
an insult on his laws, on justice, and on humanity, to pass unpunished?”
GILL, "Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee,.... Which may be
considered either as a prophecy of what would be, that God would smite him with some
judgment here, or with death quickly, or with eternal damnation hereafter; taking up his
own words, and suggesting that a retaliation would be made, and that the measure he
meted, would be measured to him again; or else as an imprecation upon him; for the
words may be rendered, "may God smite thee"; the future tense being often used by the
Jews for the imperative, and that in this very phrase; for certain it is, that this is the form
of an imprecation with them: for it is said, if anyone should say, ‫אלהום‬ ‫,יככה‬ "may God
smite", or "so may God smite"; this is ‫,אלה‬ "a curse", written in the law (p); though this
instance of the apostle ought not to be drawn into example, any more than those of other
saints, who might be under a direction of the Holy Ghost to deliver out such things,
which would come to pass in righteous judgment: and if this was Ananias, the son of
Nebedaeus, as is generally thought, it is remarkable, that five years after this, in the
beginning of the wars of the Jews with the Romans, this Ananias, hiding himself under
the ruins of a conduit, was discovered, and taken out, and killed (q): and no doubt but he
very fitly calls him
thou whited wall; or hypocrite, in like manner as Christ compares the hypocritical
Scribes and Pharisees to whited sepulchres, Mat_23:27.
for sittest thou to judge me after the law; the law of Moses, which was the rule of
judgment in the sanhedrim, at least professed to be, and which was allowed of by the
Romans, especially in matters relating to the Jewish religion:
and commandest me to be smitten contrary to law? which condemns no man
before he is heard, and much less punishes him, Joh_7:51 and which is contrary not only
to the Jewish laws, but to the Roman laws, and all others founded upon the law of nature
and reason.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "God shall smite thee — as indeed He did; for he was killed by an
assassin during the Jewish war [Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.17.9].
thou whited wall — that is, hypocrite (Mat_23:27). This epithet, however correctly
describing the man, must not be defended as addressed to a judge, though the
remonstrance which follows - “for sittest thou,” etc. — ought to have put him to shame.
CALVI , "3.God shall smite thee. Paul cannot put up that injury, but he must, at
least, with sharp words reprehend the high priest, − (524) and denounce God’s
vengeance unto him. For it is no curse, as appeareth sufficiently by the Greek text,
but rather a reprehension, joined with the denouncing of a punishment. If any man
object, that Paul did not use that modesty which Christ commandeth his to use,
when he commandeth them after they have received a blow on the left cheek to turn
the right cheek also, ( Matthew 5:39) we may readily answer, that Christ doth not in
these words require silence, whereby the wickedness and frowardness of the wicked
may be nourished; but he doth only bridle their minds, that they may not take that
injury, which they have already received, impatiently. Christ will have those that be
his to be ready to suffer another injury after that they have already received one;
and by this means he represseth all desire of revenge. This is a brief and true
definition of patience which beseemeth all the faithful, that they break not out into
wrathfulness, that they do not one evil turn for another; but that they overcome evil
with goodness. But this is no let but that they may complain of those injuries which
they have suffered, but that they may reprove the wicked, and cite them to the
judgment-seat of God; so they do this with quiet and calm minds; and, secondly,
without evil will and hatred; as Paul appealeth, in this place, unto God’s judgment-
seat, that the high priest may not flatter himself in his tyranny. Therefore he
accuseth him, because he breaketh the law, from which (as he pretendeth) he hath
his authority; whence he gathereth, that he shall not escape unpunished. −
If any man, being overcome with impatience, do but murmur, he shall not be
blameless. But a manifest and sharp accusation, if it proceed from a quiet mind,
doth not pass the bounds set down by Christ. If any man say that it is mixed with

railing, I answer, that we must always mark with what affection the words be
uttered. Christ pronounceth that man to be worthy to be punished by the council
who shall only say to his brother raca; and as for him who shall say thou fool, he
maketh him subject to a more heavy judgment ( Matthew 5:22). But if opportunity
be offered to reprove, we must oftentimes reprehend sharply. Whereby it appeareth,
that this only was Christ’s drift to keep back his, first, from all indignation,
secondly, from speaking anything in despite − (525) of any man. Therefore, let us
beware of railing, and then we may not only note in our brethren foolishness, but
also it shall be lawful for us to express their offenses by their names when need shall
be. So Paul did not speak for his own sake, that he might, with sharp words, requite
the injury done to him by the high priest; but because he was a minister of the word
of God, he would not wink at an offense which did deserve sharp and serious
reprehension; especially seeing it was profitable to bring to light the gross hypocrisy
of Ananias. Therefore, so often as we have any dealings with the wicked, if we be
desirous to handle a good cause well, we must beware that there break out in us no
motion of anger, that no desire of revenge provoke us to break out into railing. But
if the spirit of meekness reign in us, we may handle the wicked according to their
deserts, as it were out of the mouth of God; yet so that it may appear that we be
rather prophets, than that we blunder out anything rashly through immoderate
heat. −
“ − Silentio... quin saltem expostulet graviter verbis cum pontifice ,” in silence,
without at least sharply expostulating with the high priest.
“ Contumelia,” with contumely.
COFFMA , "God shall smite thee ... This was doubtless a prophecy put in Paul's
mouth by the Lord; for it is a fact that not many years later the reprobate Ananias
was murdered by his own people at the time of the beginning of the Jewish war.
Contrary to law ... It was illegal to smite a man who had not been condemned; and,
as yet, Paul had not even been tried; but such nice distinctions concerning the rights
of defendants had long before ceased to exist in the reprobate court known as the
Sanhedrin. The final years of that once sacred tribunal were marked by every kind
of vice and venality.
Revilest thou God's high priest ... ? It WAS illegal to revile an authority such as the
high priest; but the Sanhedrinists were much quicker to defend that law than they
were to honor the law forbidding striking a man illegally.
COKE, "Acts 23:3. God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, &c.— Alluding to the
beautiful outside of some walls which are full of dirt and rubbish within. See on
Matthew 23:27 and Luke 11:44. The account which Josephus gives of the character
and fate of Ananias, abundantly illustrates this prophetic speech of St. Paul. He
might well be called a whited wall, not only as he committed this indecency in
violation of the law, (Leviticus 19:15.) while gravely sitting in a sacred character on
the tribunal of justice; but also, as at the same time that he carried it plausibly

Acts 23 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Acts 23 commentary

Similar to Acts 23 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Acts 23 commentary