Acts 23

Chap. XXIII. Ver. 1-16. Paul’s defence before the sanhedrim.—The chief captain seems here to have maintained the full dignity of the Roman power, for though he brought down the prisoner before the council, it was by his command (ch. xxii. 30) that the chief priests and council were now assembled, with Ananias in the chair: but probably without his official robes, or the insignia of his former office. Paul again began his defence, avoiding repetition of what he had said the day before, in these simple and inoffensive terms:—“Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day.” This was only pleading not “guilty,” as every prisoner has certainly a right to do when put on trial; yet so offended was this priestly tyrant, Ananias, that he ordered Paul to be smitten on the mouth to silence him: on which the seer, by the spirit of prophecy, predicted the judgment that shortly after came upon him.

The expression, “Thou whited wall,” seems to have an allusion to that of our Lord, who compares the Scribes and Pharisees to “whited sepulchres,” which are beautiful without and rottenness within. ((Matthew 23:27).) And the judgment predicted was remarkably fulfilled; for though he stood on good terms towards the Jews in general, he so cruelly defrauded the inferior priests, as to bring on him the public vengeance: and, after his house had been burnt to ashes in a public tumult, when he attempted to hide himself even in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and slain—about five years subsequent to this period. Upon this speech of Paul, however, some bystanders ventured to reprove him, saying, “Revilest thou God’s High Priest?” to which he calmly replied, “I wist (or knew) not, brethren, that he was the High Priest,” or I would not have done so, for it is written, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” But a question here arises, How was it that Paul, as an inspired man, knew not that Ananias was High Priest? To this it has been answered, 1. As to Paul’s inspiration, it supplied him only with knowledge appropriate to his official duty, and not with political information; and the office of High Priest had been so often changed since they had been under the Roman power, that a stranger at Jerusalem, as Paul had been for some time, might well be ignorant both of his person and his name: but, 2. Ananias was not now, either in right or in fact, High Priest; and called so only in courtesy, as having formerly filled the office, and assuming the chair till another should take the place.

A dissension now arose in the council, which Paul has been accused of raising, but, perhaps, without sufficient reason. Some circumstance might occur to show the heterogeneous principles of the council, one part being Sadducees, and the other zealous Pharisees, on which Paul, taking the advantage of their dissension, (as we conceive he might justly do,) called out that he was “a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; and that it was for the hope and resurrection of the dead that he was now called in question.” And this was not only true in reference to the resurrection of Christ, but, in as much as our resurrection depends on his, the resurrection of mankind in general: for, as he elsewhere argues, “if Christ be not raised,” then is it in vain to hope for any resurrection. ((1 Corinthians 15:12-22).) By this statement in behalf of a resurrection, it appears that Paul naturally drew the Pharisees on his side, who, recollecting what he had said the day before of seeing a vision and hearing a voice from heaven, began to think within themselves that there might be some truth in it; and, if he had so done, (which their principles admitted to be at least possible,) it was wrong thus violently to condemn him on that account, lest they should be found to “fight against God.” Thus the Pharisees, who believed in a future state and resurrection, and the Sadducees, who denied both, fell to quarrelling, and so violent was the fray, that the chief captain was obliged again to interfere, to prevent Paul from being torn to pieces.

But the more bitter and malevolent of his enemies, who now appear to have been the Sadducees, combined against him, and forty men bound themselves under an oath to murder him. That “God in heaven that revealeth secrets,” discovered it, however, to one of Paul’s nephews, and he secretly reported Ver. 12. That they would neither eat.—[Such execrable vows as these were not unusual among the Jews, who, from their perverted traditions, challenged to themselves a right of punishing, without any legal process, those whom they considered transgressors of the law; and in some cases, as in the case of one who had forsaken the law of Moses, they thought they were justified in killing them.] to the chief captain, who, to disappoint their murderous design, sent him off by night, under a strong military guard, to Felix, the governor of Cesarea, where he resided. In the meantime, to support Paul under all these trials, he was favoured with another heavenly vision, the Lord Jesus himself standing by him, and saying, “Fear not, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness of me also at Rome.”

Ver. 17—35. Paul rescued by the chief captain, and sent to Festus, at Cesarea.—Murder is a crime held in detestation by all civilized nations, and ought to have been so particularly by the Jews, who were expressly taught by a divine oracle, “He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” ((Genesis 9:6).) Assassination is a crime that mixes cowardice with cruelty,—and demands a twofold vengeance. How, then, shall we account for it, that these Jews should not only attempt assassination, but clothe their determination under the sacred form of anathema—an oath blended with the most awful imprecations? All originates in the principle of religious intolerance, which, assuming the prerogative of Deity, to judge the conscience, impiously aspires to wield the thunderbolts of the Almighty against our supposed enemies.

This is the principle on which Saul the Pharisee “breathed out threatenings and slaughter” against the saints; and the measure which he meted out to them, was afterwards measured to him again by his former friends, the priests and scribes. This principle, which leads us to take judgment out of the hands of God, and execute it on all we judge to be his foes, is the bitterest poison in all the existing systems of intolerance, and especially popery. We are not now considering the right which the civil power unquestionably has to preserve peace among hostile sects and parties, which is necessary for the public good: but when any power, civil or ecclesiastical, dictates to men what they must believe, and how they must worship, under certain temporal pains and penalties, it assumes the authority of God, and invades the rights of man.

Happy are we, in this land of liberty, to know that intolerance, in every form, is as illegal as it is unchristian. But how shall we account for it, that Pagans should show a regard to the rights of conscience and of men, of which God’s chosen people appear ignorant, or rather, to which they were evidently hostile? The fact is, that the Jews were, at this time, in a state of the most awful apostasy, and upon the brink of national destruction. Little, however, can be said in favour of Pagan toleration. It was not founded on the rights of conscience, but on the principle that all religions were alike. So Gibbon, the celebrated historian of the Roman Empire, observes: “The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.”

But when Christianity began to spread extensively, and was found hostile to every kind of vice, then it became odious, and the object of Pagan persecution. It must be here remarked, that Christianity, in the first age, attacked Paganism by argument and persuasion only; as we see in Paul’s noble defence before the Areopagites. It defaced none of its idols, and broke down none of its altars; and had Pagans employed only the same weapons, it would have been a bloodless contest; but Paganism had no arguments, and when thus attacked could answer only by the sword. This, however, was not employed till the imperial power fell into the hands of Nero, who is entitled to the ignominy of being author of the first general persecution of Christians by Pagan Rome.

We have been led into these digressive remarks by the liberal conduct of Claudius Lysias, in rescuing Paul from Jewish persecution and determined assassination.

The conduct of Felix, also, or rather the Roman laws, must be commended, which allowed the prisoner to defend himself before his accusers in open court; the governor’s meanness, however, in seeking a bribe for his liberation, has fixed a stain upon his character which is indelible: but Paul’s trial, and Felix’s behaviour, will come regularly before us in the next section.

Notes on the verses

Chap. XXIII. Ver. 2. To smite him on the mouth.—Hanaway mentions, that when a rebel Persian chief was brought before one of Nadir Shah’s generals, his answers not pleasing him, he ordered him to be struck across the mouth, to silence him, which was done with such violence, that the blood issued forth. Compare (1 Kings 22:24).

Ver. 3. God shall smite thee.—[God did smite him in a remarkable manner; for about five years after this, after his house had been reduced to ashes, in a tumult raised by his own son, he was besieged and taken in the royal palace; where, having attempted in vain to hide himself, he was dragged out and slain. See Josephus.]—Bagster.

Ver. 5. Wist (knew) not, &c.—Ananias had certainly been high priest some years before, but was sent to Rome prisoner, under some charges of misconduct; and though he had been acquitted, he had not been reinstated, but one Jonathan appointed in his room.

Jonathan, however, had been murdered, and one Ismael appointed in his stead, but had not yet taken possession of his office, and in this interval of vacancy, Ananias pushed himself forward to preside. No magistrate was also in the council, but probably without either the robes or insignia of his former office. This is the explanation of the learned Michaelis, and is adopted by Preb. Townsend. So also Boothroyd.

Ver. 6. Of the hope and resurrection, &c.—For a vindication at large of Paul’s conduct in this place, see Dr. Findlay’s Answer to Voltaire.

Ver. 9. Fight against God.—Compare (Acts 5:39); ix. They therefore made no scruple of acquainting the chief priests and elders with their conspiracy against the life of Paul, and applying for their connivance and support: who, being chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees, and the apostle’s bitterest enemies, were so far from blaming them for it, prepared to act upon a similar attempt. If these were, in their bad way, conscientious men, they were under no necessity of perishing for hunger, when the providence of God had hindered them from accomplishing their vow; for their vows of abstinence from eating and drinking were as easy to loose as to bind, any of their wise men or Rabbis having power to absolve them, as Lightfoot has shown from the Talmud.—B.

Ver. 14. A great curse.—Doddridge, “a solemn anathema.” See note on (Numbers 22:6).

Ver. 24. Felix.—[This was Claudius Felix, the successor of Cumanus in the government of Judea. He was a freedman of the emperor Claudius, and brother of Pallas, also a freedman, the chief favourite of the emperor. Tacitus calls him Antonius Felix; and gives us to understand, that he governed with all the authority of a king, and the baseness and insolence of a quondam slave. According to Suetonius he had three queens to his wives; that is, he was married thrice, and each time to the daughter or niece of a king. He was a base, mercenary, and cruel governor; and when he was recalled to Rome, A. D. 60, the Jews brought forward so many proofs of his extortions and violence before Nero, to whom they accused him, that he would certainly have been executed or ruined, if it had not been prevented by the influence of his brother Pallas.]—Josephus.—Bagster.

Ver. 31. Antipatris—[The ancient Caphar Saba, was so called by Herod the Great, in honour of his father Antipater. It was situated in a very fruitful plain, watered with many springs and rivulets on the way from Jerusalem to Cesarea, (Josephus,) 150 stadia, or 17 miles, from Joppa, and according to the Old Jerusalem Itinerary, 10 miles from Lydda, and 25 from Cesarea.]—Bagster.

Ver. 35. Herod’s judgment hall—Or Pretorium, one of Herod’s palaces, with a state prison, probably, in the tower of it.