Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 23

And Paul, earnestly gazing at 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 occurred in that interval, but some of the faces were probably the same; and in any case, the general aspect of the Gazith, or Hall of Meeting, on the south side of the Temple, with its circular benches must have remained the same.

I have lived in all good conscience . . .—The verb for “I have lived” means literally, I have used my citizenship. It had ceased, however, to have this sharply defined meaning (see Note on the related noun in Philippians 3:20), and had come to describe 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, recognizing the power of conscience even among the Gentiles (Romans 2:15). In the phrase I know nothing by myself, i.e., “I am conscious of no fault” (see Note on 1 Corinthians 4:4), we have a similar reference to its authority. Compare also Acts 24:16, Romans 13:5, and 1 Corinthians 10:25.

In all these passages, he assigns to conscience its true functions with exact precision. It is not an infallible guide and requires illumination; therefore, each person needs to pray for light. However, it is never right to act against its dictates. Indeed, what is objectively the better course becomes subjectively the worse, unless the person in their heart believes it to be the better.

The high priest Ananias.—See Note on Acts 22:5. The son of Nebedæus 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 Judea. 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.

God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.—The phrase is interesting as showing either that our Lord, in likening the Pharisees to whitened sepulchers (see Notes on Matthew 23:27; Luke 11:44), had used a proverbial comparison, or else, as seems equally probable, that it had become proverbial among His disciples as having been so used by Him.

The whole utterance must be regarded by St. Paul’s own confession as the expression of a hasty indignation, recalled after a moment’s reflection; but the words so spoken were actually a prophecy, fulfilled some years after by the death of Ananias by the hands of the sicarii. (Jos. Wars, ii. 17, §§ 2-9).

I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest.—These words admit of three different explanations:

1. We may take them as stating that St. Paul, either from defective sight (see Notes on Acts 9:18; Acts 14:9), or because the high priest was not sitting as president of the Sanhedrin, literally did not know who it was that had given the order, and thought it came from one of the subordinate members of the council.
2. That the words were a somewhat ironical protest against the authority of Ananias as having been improperly appointed.
3. That the “I wist not” stands for “I did not consider,” and is an apologetic recantation of what had been uttered with a full knowledge that the words had been spoken by the high priest.

Of these, the first seems by far the most probable. The solemn sneer pointed by words from Scripture suggested by the second explanation is at variance with St. Paul’s character; and the third puts upon the words a greater strain than they will bear. It is obvious that St. Paul might well think that greater reverence was due to the high priest than to one filling an inferior position in the councils.

You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.—The passage (Exodus 22:28) is interesting as one of those in which the Hebrew word Elohim, commonly translated “God,” is used of earthly rulers. St. Paul probably quoted it in Hebrew , while St. Luke reproduces it from the LXX version. It need hardly be said that to act on that law towards the rulers, not only of “the people” but of the heathen; to see below all the corruptions of human society and the vices of princes, the scheme of a divine order; to recognize that the powers that be are ordained of God, was throughout the ruling principle of the Apostle’s conduct, and, for the most part, of that of the early Christians (Romans 13:1–6; 1 Peter 2:13–17). Christianity was a great revolution, but they were not, politically or socially, revolutionists.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees...—We recognize the same parties in the council as there had been twenty-five years before. Whether they sat in groups on different sides, like the Government and Opposition benches in the House of Commons, or whether St. Paul recognized the faces of individual teachers of each sect with whom he had formerly been acquainted, we have no data for deciding.

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.—It is natural, from one point of view, to dwell chiefly on the tact of the Apostle. He seems to be acting, consciously or unconsciously, on the principle divide et impera, to win over to his side a party who would otherwise have been his enemies.

With this there comes, perhaps, a half-doubt whether the policy thus adopted was altogether truthful. Was St. Paul at that time really a Pharisee? Was he not, as following in his Master’s footsteps, the sworn foe of Pharisaism? The answer to that question, which obviously ought to be answered and not suppressed, is that all parties have their good and bad sides, and that those whom the rank and file of a party most revile may be the most effective witnesses for the truths on which the existence of the party rests.

The true leaders of the Pharisees had given a prominence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which it had never had before. They taught an ethical rather than a sacrificial religion. Many of them had been, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Acts 15:5).

St. Paul, therefore, could not be charged with any suppressio veri in calling himself a Pharisee. It did not involve even a tacit disclaimer of his faith in Christ. It was rather as though he said, “I am one with you in all that is truest in your creed. I invite you to listen and see whether what I now proclaim to you is not the crown and completion of all your hopes and yearnings. Is not the resurrection of Jesus the one thing needed for a proof of that hope of the resurrection of the dead of which you and your fathers have been witnesses?”