Download pdf - Acts 23 commentary

Transcript
Page 1: Acts 23 commentary

ACTS 23 COMME�TARYEDITED 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 - �τενίσας 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 - τ��Θε� 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

Page 2: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 3: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 4: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 5: Acts 23 commentary

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:

Page 6: Acts 23 commentary

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.

Page 7: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 8: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 9: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 10: Acts 23 commentary

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.)

Paul before the council

1. The scene is shifted from a torture chamber to a court of justice, from heathens to

Page 11: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 12: Acts 23 commentary

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.)

Paul before the council

It was a scene of strange contrasts and apparently unequal conflict—one man, face to face with the representative body of a whole people, hot for merciless judgment. And yet he does not seem to be disconcerted. He rises to the occasion, and, “looking steadfastly on the council,” begins his defence.

I. Paul spoke out of an honest conviction.

1. “I have lived before God in all good conscience.” The apostle refers not so much to character as to purpose. The “chief of sinners,” as he calls himself, would hardly make boast of his faultlessness; he simply asserts that he is actuated by a supreme desire to do right in the sight of God. It is true he has broken with the religion of his fathers, but he is not a fanatical extremist and destructive. His only anxiety is to honour God.

2. Hearty conviction is ever a prerequisite of power. It is not the truth which we touch with our fingertips, but the truth which we grasp firmly, that is made “mighty through God.” Mere speculation or half faith are worth little. The men of mark in history have been men of strong convictions. Napoleon devoutly believed in what he called his “star,” and his faith in it made him the great soldier of Europe. More especially is it true that, in advancing the gospel, its defenders need definite convictions

II. Paul frankly admitted his errors of judgment.

1. The apostle had spoken without knowing whom he addressed, and he was in haste to state that his fault was one of ignorance, and not of intent. He stood for truth, and had no wish for anything but legitimate methods of defence.

2. It is never judicious for the advocates of truth to assume that they are infallible, and their opponents always wrong. In the conflict between science and revelation, and between Church and Church, assumption on the one side and the other is altogether too prominent. The true spirit of teachableness is always ready to admit

Page 13: Acts 23 commentary

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.)

Paul before the council

1. Paul could look steadfastly at the council, for he was no criminal whose own knowledge of guilt should cause him to hang his head in shame.

2. Paul realised that he was living before God. A man is not likely to go far wrong so long as he remembers that 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.)

Paul before the council

The narrative—

I. Teaches the comfort and necessity, under such circumstances, of a good conscience. Paul, standing before the council, could look his enemies in the eye. He had done nothing he was ashamed of. What misery has he whose former sins must be concealed from his fellow men! Only he who is conscious of rectitude can maintain his peace and self-possession in the face of foes. There was no assumption of self-conceit in 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.

Page 14: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 15: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 16: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 17: Acts 23 commentary

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.)

Page 18: Acts 23 commentary

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,

Page 19: Acts 23 commentary

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.)

Page 20: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 21: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 22: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 23: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 24: Acts 23 commentary

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)

Page 25: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 26: Acts 23 commentary

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?

Page 27: Acts 23 commentary

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.”

Page 28: Acts 23 commentary

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, יככה�אלהום, "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

Page 29: Acts 23 commentary

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 smittenbefore 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

Page 30: Acts 23 commentary

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

Page 31: Acts 23 commentary

towards the citizens, and stood high in their favour, he most impiously and

cruellydefrauded the inferior priests of the assistance which the divine law assigned

them; so that some of them even perished for want:—and God did remarkably smite

him; for after his own house had been reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his

own son, he was besieged and taken in the royal palace; where, having in vain

attempted to hide himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and slain;—an

event which happened five years after this, in the very beginning of the Jewish war.

ELLICOTT, "(3) 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 �otes 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).

CO�STABLE, "Jewish law considered a person innocent until proved guilty, but

Ananias had punished Paul before he had been charged much less tried and found

guilty. Paul reacted indignantly and uttered a prophecy of Ananias' judgment that

God fulfilled later. A whitewashed wall is one that was frequently inferior on the

inside but looked good outwardly (cf. Ezekiel 13:10-16; Matthew 23:27). Paul's

reaction was extreme, but as he proceeded to explain, it resulted from

misunderstanding.

PETT, "But Paul knew his Law. And he knew that the Law did not allow such

treatment to one who was on trial (e.g. Leviticus 19:15). So he retaliated verbally

with a returning insult (and afterwards admitted that he should not have done so,

however justified it might have seemed). He warned the High Priest that he would

be answerable to God for his action. A ‘whited wall’ is one that has been painted to

hide its imperfections so that it can pretend to be what it is not (compare Ezekiel

13:10-11; Ezekiel 13:14; Matthew 23:27) and was liable to be exposed by judgment

(Ezekiel 13:10-11; Ezekiel 13:14). He was saying that the judge was a hypocrite and

would himself face judgment for it. Like Peter, Paul could be a bit precipitate

(compare Galatians 3:1; Galatians 5:12; Philippians 3:2 and contrast 1 Corinthians

4:12 - Barnabas would never have done it. But then he would never have achieved

what Paul did).

He was quite rightly pointing out that the judge also came under the eye of the

divine judge. But he should have remembered that he was speaking not only to the

High Priest but to the whole court, although in fact his words were an unconscious

prophecy (or an effective curse) for Ananias was murdered by terrorists at the

beginning of the Jewish war

Page 32: Acts 23 commentary

4 Those who were standing near Paul said, “How

dare you insult God’s high priest!”

BAR�ES, "Revilest thou ... - Dost thou reproach or abuse the high priest of God? is remarkable that they, who knew that he was not the high priest, should have offered this language. He was, however, in the place of the high priest, and they might have pretended that respect was due to the office.

GILL, "And they that stood by,.... The members of the sanhedrim that were next to the apostle; or the servants of the high priest, since they are said to stand, whereas those of that court sat: said,

revilest thou God's high priest? which seems to confirm that the apostle's words were not a bare prediction, but an imprecation, since they are charged with reproaching, reviling, and speaking evil of him; and the aggravation of which was not only that the person reviled was a priest, an high priest, but an high priest of God; though this could not have been proved, for there was now no high priest of God but Jesus Christ; the priesthood was changed and abrogated, and there were no more high priests among men of God's appointing and approving.

HE�RY, "IV. The offence which was taken at this bold word of Paul's (Act_23:4): Those that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? It is a probable conjecture that those who blamed Paul for what he said were believing Jews, who were zealous for the law, and consequently for the honour of the high priest, and therefore took it ill that Paul should thus reflect upon him, and checked him for it. See here then, 1. What a hard game Paul had to play, when his enemies were abusive to him, and his friends were so far from standing by him, and appearing for him, that they were ready to find fault with his management. 2. How apt even the disciples of Christ themselves are to overvalue outward pomp and power. As because the temple had been God's temple, and a magnificent structure, there were those who followed Christ that could not bear to have any thing said that threatened the destruction of it; so because the high priest had been God's high priest, and was a man that made a figure, though he was an inveterate enemy to Christianity, yet these were disgusted at Paul for giving him his due.

CALVI�, "4.Those which stood by said By this it appeareth that they were all sick

of one disease. − (526) For why do they not rather blame Ananias, when they saw

that he had quite forgotten all modesty, and that he brake out into violence and

stripes after a barbarous manner? for even this did turn to the reproach of them all.

− (527) But this is a solemn [marked] thing among hypocrites, they look narrowly

into other men’s faults and wink at their own. Again, this pride is coupled with

tyranny, so that their subjects, and those who are under them, may do nothing, but

Page 33: Acts 23 commentary

as for themselves, they may do whatsoever they will. So fareth it at this day in

Popery, the more liberty that impure clergy doth grant to itself, and the more

carelessly it waxeth wanton, and polluteth the whole world with the sins which flow

thence, the more straitly do they rule and stay the tongues of the people. Therefore,

if any man dare be so bold as once to whisper, a little liberty doth cause them to

make outrageous outcries as it were heinous sacrilege. −

“ Eadem omnes intemperie laborasse,” that they all laboured under the same

intemperance,

“ In commune illorum dedecus,” to their common disgrace.

CO�STABLE, "Paul may not have known that the person who commanded the

soldier to strike him was the high priest for any number of reasons. Paul had not

been in Jerusalem for an extended visit for over 20 years and may not have been

able to recognize the current high priest by sight. Perhaps Ananias was not wearing

his high priestly robes since this was not a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin. [�ote:

Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," p. 531.] Perhaps Paul was looking in another

direction when Ananias gave the order to strike him. Perhaps Paul had poor

eyesight. [�ote: McGee, 4:614.] However this seems less likely in view of Acts 23:1.

The passage to which some commentators appeal to argue that Paul had deficient

eyesight (Galatians 4:13-15) does not really say that. Another possibility is that Paul

was speaking in irony: "'I did not think that a man who would give such an order

could be the high priest.'" [�ote: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 364; �eil, p. 228.] Some

interpreters believe that Paul simply lost his temper. [�ote: Ironside, Lectures on . .

., p. 537.] Others believe he was apologizing. [�ote: Kent, p. 168.] Paul voiced

similar passionate utterances on other occasions (cf. Galatians 2:11; Galatians 5:12;

Philippians 3:2).

The high priest was a ruler of the Jews in a higher sense than was true of the rest of

the Sanhedrin members. Paul's quotation from Exodus 22:28 showed that he was in

subjection to God's revealed will that he was on trial for repudiating. Being subject

to governmental authorities is a requirement under the �ew Covenant as it was

under the Old (cf. Romans 13:1-7; et al.). Paul quoted the Old Covenant here for the

benefit of the Jews who lived under it.

5 Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he

was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak

evil about the ruler of your people.’[a]”

Page 34: Acts 23 commentary

BAR�ES, "Then said Paul, I wist not - I know not; I was ignorant of the fact that he was high priest. Interpreters have been greatly divided on the meaning of this expression. Some have supposed that Paul said it in irony, as if he had said, “Pardon me, brethren, I did not consider that this was the high priest. It did not occur to me that a man who could conduct thus could be God’s highest. Others have thought (as Grotius) that Paul used these words for the purpose of mitigating their wrath, and as an acknowledgment that he had spoken hastily, and that it was contrary to his usual habit, which was not to speak evil of the ruler of the people. As if he had said, “I acknowledge my error and my haste. I did not consider that I was addressing him whom God had commanded me to respect.” But this interpretation is not probable, for Paul evidently did not intend to retract what he had said.

Dr. Doddridge renders it, “I was not aware, brethren, that it was the high priest,” and regards it as an apology for having spoken in haste. But the obvious reply to this interpretation is, that if Ananias was the high priest, Paul could not but be aware of it. Of so material a point it is hardly possible that he could be ignorant. Others suppose that, as Paul had been long absent from Jerusalem, and had not known the changes which had occurred there, he was a stranger to the person of the high priest. Others suppose that Ananias did not occupy the usual seat which was appropriated to the high priest, and that he was not clothed in the usual robes of office, and that Paul did not recognize him as the high priest. But it is wholly improbable that on such an occasion the high priest, who was the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin, should not be known to the accused. The true interpretation, therefore, I suppose, is what is derived from the fact that Ananias was not then properly the high priest; that there was a vacancy in the office, and that he presided by courtesy, or in virtue of his having been formerly invested with that office.

The meaning then will be: “I do not regard or acknowledge him as the high priest, or address him as such, since that is not his true character. Had he been truly the high priest, even if he had thus been guilty of manifest injustice, I would not have used the language which I did. The office, if not the man, would have claimed respect. But as he is not truly and properly clothed with that office, and as he was guilty of manifest injustice, I did not believe that he was to be shielded in his injustice by the Law which commands me to show respect to the proper ruler of the people.” If this be the true interpretation, it shows that Luke, in this account, accords entirely with the truth of history. The character of Ananias as given by Josephus, the facts which he has stated in regard to him, all accord with the account here given, and show that the writer of the “Acts of the Apostles” was acquainted with the history of that time, and has correctly stated it.

For it is written - Exo_22:28. Paul adduces this to show that it was his purpose to observe the Law; that he would not intentionally violate it; and that, if he had known Ananias to be high priest, he would have been restrained by his regard for the Law from using the language which he did.

Of the ruler of thy people - This passage had not any special reference to the high priest, but it inculcated the general spirit of respect for those in office, whatever that office was. As the office of high priest was one of importance and authority, Paul declares here that he would not be guilty of showing disrespect for it, or of using reproachful language in regard to it.

Page 35: Acts 23 commentary

CLARKE,"I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - After all the learned labor that has been spent on this subject, the simple meaning appears plainly to be this: -

St. Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest; he had been long absent from Jerusalem; political changes were frequent; the high priesthood was no longer in succession, and was frequently bought and sold; the Romans put down one high priest, and raised up another, as political reasons dictated. As the person of Ananias might have been wholly unknown to him, as the hearing was very sudden, and there was scarcely any time to consult the formalities of justice, it seems very probable that St. Paul, if he ever had known the person of Ananias, had forgotten him; and as, in a council or meeting of this kind, the presence of the high priest was not indispensably necessary, he

did not know that the person who presided was not the sagan, or high priest’s deputy, or some other person put in the seat for the time being. I therefore understand the words above in their most obvious and literal sense. He knew not who the person was, and God’s Spirit suddenly led him to denounce the Divine displeasure against him.

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people - If I had known he was the high priest, I should not have publicly pronounced this execration; for respect is due to his person for the sake of his office. I do not see that Paul intimates that he had done any thing through inadvertence; nor does he here confess any fault; he states two facts: -

1. That he did not know him to be the high priest.

2. That such a one, or any ruler of the people, should be reverenced. But he neither recalled or made an apology for his words: he had not committed a trespass, and he did not acknowledge one. We must beware how we attribute either to him in the case before us.

GILL, "Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest,.... Or I did not know that he was the high priest; and the sense is, that he did not really know him, either because he had been long absent from Jerusalem; and besides there were new high priests made, sometimes every year, and sometimes oftener, that it is no wonder he should not know him; or because he might not sit in his usual place; or chiefly because he was not, in his habit, an high priest; for the priests, both the high priest, and the common priests, only wore their priestly robes, when they ministered in their office, and at other times they wore other clothes, as laymen did, according to Eze_44:19 which the Targum paraphrases thus;

"when they (the priests) shall go out of the holy court into the outer court, to be mixed with the people, they shall put off their garments in which they ministered, and lay them up in the holy chamber, and shall clothe themselves with other garments, that they may

not be mingled with the people, בלבושיהון, "in their garments".''

For as soon as they had performed their office, there were servants that attended them, who stripped them of their robes, and laid them up in chests which were in the temple (r) till they came to service again, and put them on common garments; for they might not appear among the common people in their priestly garments; which when they were

off of them, they were, as Maimonides says (s), כזרים, "as strangers", or as laymen, like

Page 36: Acts 23 commentary

the rest of the people; for which reason Paul might not know Ananias to be the high priest: and this points to another sense of these words; for it was a rule with the Jews (t), that

"at the time the priests' garments were upon them, their priesthood was upon them, but

when their garments were not on them, אין�כהונ־תאם�עליהן, "there was no priesthood upon them"; for lo, they were as strangers.''

And then the sense is, Ananias not being in the discharge of his office, nor in his habit, the apostle did not know, or own him as an high priest, or consider him as in such a station; or rather, since the priesthood was changed, and there was no other high priest of God but Jesus Christ, he did not own him as one; had he, he should not have spoke to him in the manner he did. Moreover, if this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is the opinion of many, he had no right to the office of the priesthood when he was first made an high priest; after which he was sent a prisoner to Rome; during which time several succeeded in the priesthood; and at this time not he, though he had got the management of affairs in his hands, was high priest, but Jesus the son of Gamaliel; so that the apostle's sense might be, he did not own or acknowledge him high priest. Some take the apostle's words in an ironical sense; he an high priest, I should not have known him to be an high priest, he looks and acts more like a furioso, a madman, an unjust judge, and a tyrant, than an high priest, who ought to behave in another guise manner. But what follows shows rather that the apostle spoke seriously, unless the words can be thought to be a citation made by Luke,

for it is written, in Exo_22:28 "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people"; which the Jewish writers generally understand of the head of the great sanhedrim, as Ananias might be, or of a king (u).

HE�RY, "V. The excuse that Paul made for what he had said, because he found it was a stumbling-block to his weak brethren, and might prejudice them against him in other things. These Jewish Christians, though weak, yet were brethren, so he calls them here, and, in consideration of that, is almost ready to recall his words; for who is offended,saith he, and I burn not? 2Co_11:29. His fixed resolution was rather to abridge himself in the use of his Christian liberty than give offence to a weak brother; rather than do this, he will eat no flesh while the world stands, 1Co_8:13. And so here though he had taken the liberty to tell the high priest his own, yet, when he found it gave offence, he cried Peccavi - I have done wrong. He wished he had not done it; and though he did not beg the high priest's pardon, nor excuse it to him, yet he begs their pardon who took offence at it, because this was not a time to inform them better, nor to say what he could say to justify himself. 1. He excuses it with this, that he did not consider when he said it to

whom he spoke (Act_23:5): I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - ouk�ēdein. “I did not just then think of the dignity of his place, or else I would have spoken more respectfully to him.” I see not how we can with any probability think that Paul did not know him to be the high priest, for Paul had been seven days in the temple at the time of the feast, where he could not miss of seeing the high priest; and his telling him that he sat to judge him after the law shows that he knew who he was; but, says he, I did not consider it. Dr. Whitby puts this sense upon it, that the prophetic impulse that was upon him, and inwardly moved him to say what he did, did not permit him to notice that it was the high priest, lest this law might have restrained him from complying with that impulse; but the Jews acknowledged that prophets might use a liberty in speaking of

Page 37: Acts 23 commentary

rulers which others might not, as Isa_1:10, Isa_1:23. Or (as he quotes the sense of Grotius and Lightfoot) Paul does not go about to excuse what he had said in the least, but rather to justify it; “I own that God's high priest is not to be reviled, but I do not own this Ananias to be high priest. He is a usurper; he came to the office by bribery and corruption, and the Jewish rabbin say that he who does so is neither a judge nor to be honoured as such.” Yet, 2. He takes care that what he had said should not be drawn into a precedent, to the weakening of the obligation of that law in the least: For it is written,and it remains a law in full force, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. It is for the public good that the honour of magistracy should be supported, and not suffer for the miscarriages of those who are entrusted with it, and therefore that decorum be observed in speaking both of and to princes and judges. Even in Job's time it was not thought fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked, or to princes, You are ungodly, Job_34:18. Even when we do well, and suffer for it, we must take it patiently, 1Pe_2:20. Not as if great men may not hear of their faults, and public grievances be complained of by proper persons and in a decent manner, but there must be a particular tenderness for the honour and reputation of those in authority more than of other people, because the law of God requires a particular reverence to be paid to them, as God's vicegerents; and it is of dangerous consequence to have those any way countenanced who despise dominions, and speak evil of dignities, Jud_1:8. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought, Ecc_10:20.

JAMISO�, "I wist not ... that he was the high priest— All sorts of explanations of this have been given. The high priesthood was in a state of great confusion and constant change at this time (as appears from Josephus), and the apostle’s long absence from Jerusalem, and perhaps the manner in which he was habited or the seat he occupied, with other circumstances to us unknown, may account for such a speech. But if he was thrown off his guard by an insult which touched him to the quick, “what can surpass the grace with which he recovered his self-possession, and the frankness with which he acknowledged his error? If his conduct in yielding to the momentary impulse was not that of Christ Himself under a similar provocation (Joh_18:22, Joh_18:23), certainly the manner in which he atoned for his fault was Christ-like” [Hacket].

CALVI�, "5.I knew not, brethren. Those who think that this excuse of Paul hath in

it no figure, do not well mark the contrary objections wherewith their error is

refuted. They say that Paul knew not the high priest, because he had been absent

long time; as if he were ignorant that he was chief priest, who is the chief in the

council, and hath the uppermost room. �either was Ananias so base and obscure

that Paul was ignorant of his degree. But his words cut off all occasion of

disputation, when as he chideth him, because, occupying the place of a judge, under

color of the law, he doth, in his rage, that which is contrary to law. Therefore Paul

knew what place he had, when he said that he abused his power. Other some invent

a more subtle answer, that he spake not here of the mail, but of the office and public

person. But, first, the exposition is far fet, [fetched] because, if Paul did reverence

the priesthood, he must needs have given some honor to the man which had the

same. And now it is not to be thought (forasmuch as the majesty of the priesthood

was abolished by the coming of Christ, and that there followed such filthy

profanation) that Paul did honor those as he was wont, (as if their perfect and

lawful authority did continue) who, under the title of the high priests, did reign as

lords without any law or right. −

Page 38: Acts 23 commentary

Therefore, subscribing to Augustine, I do not doubt but that this is a taunting

excuse. �either doth that any whit hinder, because plain speech becometh the

ministers of the word. For seeing there be two sorts of ironies, one which is covered

with subtilty and means to deceive, another which doth so figuratively note out the

thing which is in hand, that it doth prick sorer; in this second, there is nothing

which doth not well beseem the servants of Christ. Therefore, this is the meaning of

the words, Brethren, I acknowledge nothing in this man which belongeth to the

priest. Also, he added a testimony of the 22nd chapter of Exodus, ( Exodus 22:28) in

which place, though Moses speak of judges, yet the sentence is extended properly

unto any lawful order. Therefore all dignity, which is appointed for maintenance of

civil government, ought to be reverenced and had in honor. For whosoever he be

that rebelleth against or resisteth the magistrate, or those who are appointed to rule,

and are promoted unto honor, he would have no government. − (528) And such

desire tendeth to the disturbing of order. Yea, it shaketh and overthroweth all

humanity. Therefore Paul purgeth himself of this crime; yet so, that he denieth that

Ananias is to be counted a priest of God, who hath corrupted and perverted all the

order of the Church. −

But here riseth a question, whether we ought not to obey a ruler, though he exercise

tyranny? For if that man be not to be deprived of honor which executeth his office

amiss, Paul offended in robbing the high priest of his honor. Therefore I answer,

that there is some difference between civil magistrates and the prelates of the

Church. For though the exploiting [administration] of earthly or civil rule be

confused or perverse, yet the Lord will have men to continue still in subjection. But

when the spiritual government doth degenerate, the consciences of the godly are at

liberty, and set free from obeying unjust authority; especially if the wicked and

profane enemies of holiness do falsely pretend the title of priesthood to overthrow

the doctrine of salvation, and challenge to themselves such authority, as that they

will be thereby equal with God. So it is not only lawful for the faithful at this day to

shake off from their shoulders the Pope’s yoke, but they must do it of necessity,

seeing they cannot obey his laws unless they forsake God.

“ Anarchiam appetit,” he longs for anarchy.

COFFMA�, "I knew not ... There is no reason whatever to accuse Paul of blindness

(or near-sightedness), as some have done, or to insist that "Surely Paul would know

the high priest,"[8] or that he spoke sarcastically, as if to say, "You cannot make a

high priest out of contemptible material like that!"[9] For reasons cited under Acts

23:4, the view here is that Paul simply spoke the truth and that he did not know the

high priest by his personal appearance, although he might indeed have known his

name. Milligan, however, thought that Paul simply regarded Ananias "as a

usurper."[10] Paul's admission of wrong and the citing of the scripture in Exodus

22:28 which he had inadvertently violated does not seem to allow the view that Paul

would have said what he did, if he had known he was addressing the high priest.

True enough, the current holder of the office was vile; but the office itself had long

been accounted sacred.

Page 39: Acts 23 commentary

Paul's understandable outrage and impromptu protest, in all probability inspired,

had two very important results: (1) it prophesied the destruction of Ananias, and (2)

it led Paul to see at once that there was not any possibility of justice for himself in

such a tribunal. "There was no prospect before this tribunal of a fair inquiry and a

just decision."[11] This accounts for the strategy Paul immediately employed in his

defense.

[8] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (�ashville: The Gospel Advocate

Company, 1953), p. 363.

[9] W. R. Walker, op. cit., p. 72.

[10] Robert Milligan, Analysis of the �ew Testament (Cincinnati, Ohio: Bosworth,

Chase and Hall, Publishers), p. 396.

[11] W. J. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.

B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 591.

COKE, "Acts 23:5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest:— Animated on

a sudden by the secret impulse of a prophetic Spirit, which bore him, as it were, for

that moment beyond himself, St. Paul delivered the words of Acts 23:3 which being

urged against him, he chose not to enter upon a question so difficult to be cleared

up, as the divine original of that impulse on his mind, by which he found himself

inclined to utter those remarkable words; and only touched upon a circumstance

attending it, saying, "Indeed, brethren, in the sudden transport of my mind, I was

not aware that it was the high-priest." This is a natural rendering of the original

words;—which cannot fairly be translated, I do not acknowledge him to be the high-

priest: nor can it be imagined that St. Paul would enter on so curious and so

dangerous a question as the justice of his accession to that office. Some have thought

that St. Paul did not know him personally,but his habit and place in the sanhedrim

must have distinguished him; or, if we were to suppose with Ribetus and others, that

St. Paul, hearing the voice while looking another way, did not know whence it came,

the solution is utterly insufficient; for his answer plainly shews, that he knew the

person speaking to be a judge. The best exposition therefore of this matter, I am

persuaded, is that above given, which willeasily reconcile all that passed with

Christ's promise of being with his disciples, when appearing before councils.

Matthew 10:19. Mark 13:11. For, according to that exposition, St. Paul by

inspiration uttered a true prediction, and then alleged a true fact, to prevent any ill

use of the circumstance in which it was spoken; only waving something which he

might have justly urged in his own vindication, and from which he had an

undoubted right to recede, if he thought fit. In the mean time, the candour both of

the apostle and of the sacred historian, is well worthy our remark.

ELLICOTT, "(5) 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 �otes on Acts 9:18; Acts 14:9), or because the

Page 40: Acts 23 commentary

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 (2) is at variance with St. Paul’s character;

and (3) 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.

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy 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 (see Acts

22:2), while St. Luke reproduces it from the LXX. version. It need hardly be said

that to act on that law towards the rulers, not, of “the people” only, 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 recognise 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.

PETT, "Paul immediately admitted his fault. He informed them that he had not

known that this man was the High Priest, otherwise he would not have done it.

Perhaps there is also here the strong hint that if the man had behaved more like a

High Priest he might have the better recognised him. �evertheless the Scriptures

enjoined the giving of proper respect to the leaders of the people when in office

(Exodus 22:28), therefore he regretted it however deserved it might have been. In a

similar way today we speak of ‘contempt of court’. We may hold the judge in

contempt, but when he is officiating he represents the Law, and must therefore be

treated with the respect due to his position, even if not for himself.

We must remember here that Paul had been away from Jerusalem for many years,

apart from brief visits. He was not therefore familiar with the current High Priest.

And at this ad hoc meeting the High Priest may well not have been robed. Indeed

the fact that Paul had begun ‘men, brethren’ does suggest that he had not

recognised among those met together any particularly high level officials, for he

usually uses the correct address. Although it might be that had he been seen as a

respected Pharisee such an address would not have been seen as coming amiss.

This Ananias was an altogether unpleasant person and was in fact noted for his

greed and arrogance. Josephus called him ‘the great procurer of money’, partly

because of his unscrupulous use of the trading in the Temple for gain, and partly

because he was ruthlessly violent in extracting money from people, for example, in

using beatings to extort tithes from the common priests' allotment and leaving them

Page 41: Acts 23 commentary

destitute. He was an extremely wealthy man and was not above using bribes and

violence in order to increase his wealth and obtain what he wanted. Thus his

treatment of Paul here was quite in character.

6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were

Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in

the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee,

descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because

of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

BAR�ES, "But when Paul perceived - Probably by his former acquaintance with the men who composed the council. As he had been brought up in Jerusalem, and had been before acquainted with the Sanhedrin Act_9:2, he would have an acquaintance, doubtless, with the character of most of those present, though he had been absent from them for fourteen years, Gal_2:1.

The one part ... - That the council was divided into two parts, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was commonly the case, though it was uncertain which had the majority. In regard to the opinions of these two sects, see the notes on Mat_3:7.

He cried out ... - The reasons why Paul resolved to take advantage of their difference of opinion were, probably:

(1) That he saw that it was impossible to expect justice at their hands, and he therefore regarded it as prudent and proper to consult his own safety. He saw, from the conduct of Ananias, and from the spirit manifested Act_23:4, that they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the case, and were driven on by blind rage and fury.

(2) His object was to show his innocence to the chief captain. To ascertain that was the purpose for which he had been arraigned. Yet that, perhaps, could be most directly and satisfactorily shown by bringing out, as he knew he could do, the real spirit which actuated the whole council, as a spirit of party strife, contention, and persecution. Knowing, therefore, how sensitive they were on the subject of the resurrection, he seems to have resolved to do what he would not have done had they been disposed to hear him according to the rules of justice - to abandon the direct argument for his defense, and to enlist a large part, perhaps a majority of the council, in his favor. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of this course, it cannot be denied that it was a masterstroke of policy, and that it evinced a profound knowledge of human nature.

I am a Pharisee - That is, I was of that sect among the Jews. I was born a Pharisee, and I ever continued while a Jew to be of that sect. In the main he agreed with them still. He did not mean to deny that he was a Christian, but that, so far as the Pharisees

Page 42: Acts 23 commentary

differed from the Sadducees, he was with the former. He agreed with them, not with the Sadducees, in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits.

The son of a Pharisee -What was the name of his father is not known. But the meaning is, simply, that he was entitled to all the immunities and privileges of a Pharisee. He had, from his birth, belonged to that sect, nor had he ever departed from the great cardinal doctrine which distinguished that sect - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Compare Phi_3:5.

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead - That is, of the hope that the dead will be raised. This is the real point of the opposition to me.

I am called in question - Greek: I am judged; that is, I am persecuted, or brought to trial. Orobio charges this upon Paul as an artful manner of declining persecution, unworthy the character of an upright and honest man. Chubb, a British Deist of the seventeenth century, charges it upon Paul as an act of gross “dissimulation, as designed to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had brought upon himself, and as designed to deceive and impose upon the Jews.” He affirms also that “Paul probably invented this pretended charge against himself to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews unto him.” See Chubb’s Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 238. Now, in reply to this, we may observe:

(1) That there is not the least evidence that Paul denied that he had been, or was then, a Christian. An attempt to deny this, after all that they knew of him, would have been vain; and there is not the slightest hint that he attempted it.

(2) The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was the main and leading doctrine which he had insisted on, and which had been to him the cause of much of his persecution. See Act_17:31-32; 1 Cor. 15; Act_13:34; Act_26:6-7, Act_26:23, Act_26:25.

(3) Paul defended this by an argument which he deemed invincible; and which constituted, in fact, the principal evidence of its truth - the fact that the Lord Jesus had been raised. That fact had fully confirmed the doctrine of the Pharisees that the dead would rise. As Paul had everywhere proclaimed the fact that Jesus had been raised up, and as this had been the occasion of his being opposed, it was true that he had been persecuted on account of that doctrine.

(4) The real ground of the opposition Which the Sadducees made to him, and of their opposition to his doctrine, was the additional zeal with which he urged this doctrine, and the additional argument which he brought for the resurrection of the dead. Perhaps the cause of the opposition of this great party among the Jews the Sadducees - to Christianity, was the strong confirmation which the resurrection of Christ gave to the doctrine which they so much hated - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. It thus gave a triumph to their opponents among the Pharisees, and Paul, as a leading and zealous advocate of that doctrine, would excite their special hatred.

(5) All that Paul said, therefore, was strictly true. It was because he advocated this doctrine that he was opposed. That there were other causes of opposition to him might be true also; but still this was the main and prominent cause of the hostility.

(6) With great propriety, therefore, he might address the Pharisees and say, “Brethren, the doctrine which has distinguished you from the Sadducees is at stake. The doctrine which is at the foundation of all our hopes - the resurrection of the dead; the doctrine of our fathers, of the Scriptures, of our sect, is in danger. Of that doctrine I have been the advocate. I have never denied it. I have everywhere defended it, and have devoted myself to the work of putting it on an imperishable basis among the Jews and the Gentiles. For my zeal in that I have been opposed. I have excited the ridicule of the Gentile and the

Page 43: Acts 23 commentary

hatred of the Sadducee. I have thus been persecuted and arraigned; and for my zeal in urging the argument in defense of it which I have deemed most irrefragable the resurrection of the Messiah - I have been arraigned, and now cast myself on your protection against the mad zeal of the enemies of the doctrine of our fathers.” Not only, therefore, was this an act of policy and prudence in Paul, but what he affirmed was strictly true, and the effect was as he had anticipated.

CLARKE,"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee - Instead of Φαρισαιου, of a

Pharisee, ABC, some others, with the Syriac and Vulgate, have Φαρισαιων, of the Pharisees; which, if acknowledged to be the genuine reading, would alter the sense thus, I am a Pharisee, and a disciple of the Pharisees, for so the word son is frequently understood.

Of the hope and resurrection - Concerning the hope of the resurrection, the και, and, being here redundant; indeed, it is omitted by the Syriac, all the Arabic, and Ethiopic. St. Paul had preached the resurrection of the dead, on the foundation and evidence of the resurrection of Christ. For this, he and the apostles were, some time before, imprisoned by the high priest and elders, Act_4:1-3; Act_5:17, because they preached, Through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead. This they could not bear; for, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, their malice and wickedness, in putting him to death, were incontrovertibly established.

GILL, "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees,.... That is, that one part of the sanhedrim consisted of Sadducees, which was often the case; sometimes the high priest was of this sect, as Ananias probably was, and sometimes the greater part of the sanhedrim were Sadducees, and even sometimes the whole; See Gill on Act_5:17, but this sanhedrim were only part of them Sadducees:

and the other Pharisees; of both these sects; see Gill on Mat_3:7.

he cried out in the council; with a loud voice, that he might be heard by all:

men and brethren,

I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.

The son of a Pharisee; the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read in the plural number, "the son of Pharisees"; his father and his mother were both Pharisees; for there were women Pharisees (w), as well as men; so that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, as well as an Hebrew of the Hebrews; and this is said to show that he was by education of that sect.

Page 44: Acts 23 commentary

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question; that is, either for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, Act_24:15 or for professing the hope of eternal life, and happiness in a future state, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when the soul and body will be reunited, and enjoy endless felicity together: not that these were the particular things now charged upon him, and for which he was now trying and judging; but that these were the ground and foundation of the hatred and persecution of him, because he preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the resurrection of men through him, and that there was hope of eternal life and salvation by him. And in this the apostle showed the prudence and wisdom of the serpent, along with the innocence of the dove, hereby to divide the assembly, and free himself from them; and it was but just and right; for since they would not hear him about to make a fair and open defence of his cause, but ordered him to be smitten on the mouth, it was but justice to throw them into confusion, and save himself.

HE�RY, "Many are the troubles of the righteous, but some way or other the Lord delivereth them out of them all. Paul owned he had experienced the truth of this in the persecutions he had undergone among the Gentiles (see 2Ti_3:11): Out of them all the Lord delivered me. And now he finds that he who has delivered does and will deliver. He that delivered him in the foregoing chapter from the tumult of the people here delivers him from that of the elders.

I. His own prudence and ingenuity stand him in some stead, and contribute much to his escape. Paul's greatest honour, and that upon which he most valued himself, was that he was a Christian, and an apostle of Christ; and all his other honours he despised and made nothing of, in comparison with this, counting them but dung, that he might win Christ; and yet he had sometimes occasion to make use of his other honours, and they did him service. His being a citizen of Rome saved him in the foregoing chapter from his being scourged by the chief captain as a vagabond, and here his being a Pharisee saved him from being condemned by the sanhedrim, as an apostate from the faith and worship of the God of Israel. It will consist very well with our willingness to suffer for Christ to use all lawful methods, nay, and arts too, both to prevent suffering and to extricate ourselves out of it. The honest policy Paul used here for his own preservation was to divide his judges, and to set them at variance one with another about him; and, by incensing one part of them more against him, to engage the contrary part for him.

1. The great council was made up of Sadducees and Pharisees, and Paul perceived it. He knew the characters of many of them ever since he lived among them, and saw those among them whom he knew to be Sadducees, and others whom he knew to be Pharisees (Act_23:6): One part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and perhaps nearly an equal part. Now these differed very much from one another, and yet they ordinarily agreed well enough to do the business of the council together. (1.) The Pharisees were bigots, zealous for the ceremonies, not only those which God had appointed, but those which were enjoined by the tradition of the elders. They were great sticklers for the authority of the church, and for enforcing obedience to its injunctions, which occasioned many quarrels between them and our Lord Jesus; but at the same time they were very orthodox in the faith of the Jewish church concerning the world of spirits, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (2.) The Sadducees were deists - no friends to the scripture, or divine revelation. The books of Moses they admitted as containing a good history and a good law, but had little regard to the other books of the Old Testament; see Mat_22:23. The account here given of these Sadducees is, [1.] That they deny the resurrection; not only the return of the body to life, but a future state of rewards and punishments. They had neither hope of eternal happiness

Page 45: Acts 23 commentary

nor dread of eternal misery, nor expectation of any thing on the other side death; and it was upon these principles that they said, It is in vain to serve God, and called the proud happy, Mal_3:14, Mal_3:15. [2.] That they denied the existence of angels and spirits, and allowed of no being but matter. They thought that God himself was corporeal, and had parts and members as we have. When they read of angels in the Old Testament, they supposed them to be messengers that God made and sent on his errands as there was occasion, or that they were impressions on the fancies of those they were sent to, and no real existences - that they were this, or that, or any thing rather than what they were. And, as for the souls of men, they looked upon them to be nothing else but the temperament of the humours of the body, or the animal spirits, but denied their existence in a state of separation from the body, and any difference between the soul of a man and of a beast. These, no doubt, pretended to be free-thinkers, but really thought as meanly, absurdly, and slavishly, as possible. It is strange how men of such corrupt and wicked principles could come into office, and have a place in the great sanhedrim; but many of them were of quality and estate, and they complied with the public establishment, and so got in and kept in. But they were generally stigmatized as heretics, were ranked with the Epicureans, and were prayed against and excluded from eternal life. The prayer which the modern Jews use against Christians, Witsius thinks, was designed by Gamaliel, who made it, against the Sadducees; and that they meant them in their usual imprecation, Let the name of the wicked rot. But how degenerate was the character and how miserable the state of the Jewish church, when such profane men as these were among their rulers!

2. In this matter of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees Paul openly declared himself to be on the Pharisees' side against the Sadducees (Act_23:6): He cried out, so as to be heard by all, “I am a Pharisee, was bred a Pharisee, nay, I was born one, in effect, for I was the son of a Pharisee, my father was one before me, and thus far I am still a Pharisee that I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and I may truly say that, if the matter were rightly understood, it would be found that this is it for which I am now called in question.” When Christ was upon earth the Pharisees set themselves most against him, because he witnessed against their traditions and corrupt glosses upon the law; but, after his ascension, the Sadducees set themselves most against his apostles, because they preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead, Act_4:1, Act_4:2. And it is said (Act_5:17) that they were the sect of the Sadducees that were filled with indignation at them, because they preached that life and immortality which is brought to light by the gospel. Now here, (1.) Paul owns himself a Pharisee, so far as the Pharisees were in the right. Though as Pharisaism was opposed to Christianity he set himself against it, and against all its traditions that were set up in competition with the law of God or in contradiction to the gospel of Christ, yet, as it was opposed to Sadducism, he adhered to it. We must never think the worse of any truth of God, nor be more shy of owning it, for its being held by men otherwise corrupt. If the Pharisees will hope for the resurrection of the dead, Paul will go along with them in that hope, and be one of them, whether they will or no. (2.) He might truly say that being persecuted, as a Christian, this was the thing he was called in question for. Perhaps he knew that the Sadducees, though they had not such an interest in the common people as the Pharisees had, yet had underhand incensed the mob against him, under pretence of his having preached to the Gentiles, but really because he had preached the hope of the resurrection. However, being called in question for his being a Christian, he might truly say he was called in question for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, as he afterwards pleaded, Act_24:15, and Act_26:6, Act_26:7. Though Paul preached against the traditions of the elders (as his Master had done), and therein opposed the Pharisees, yet he valued himself more upon his preaching the resurrection of the dead, and a future

Page 46: Acts 23 commentary

state, in which he concurred with the Pharisees.

JAMISO� 6-9, "when Paul perceived— from the discussion which plainly had by this time arisen between the parties.

that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out—raising his voice above both parties.

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee— The true reading seems to be, “the son of Pharisees,” that is, belonging to a family who from father to son had long been such.

of the hope and resurrection of the dead— that is, not the vague hope of immortality, but the definite expectation of the resurrection.

I am called in question— By this adroit stroke, Paul engages the whole Pharisaic section of the council in his favor; the doctrine of a resurrection being common to both, though they would totally differ in their application of it. This was, of course, quite warrantable, and the more so as it was already evident that no impartiality in trying his cause was to be looked for from such an assembly.

HAWKER 6-10, "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

I need not dwell upon the evident design of Paul, by this declaration of his. Neither will it be necessary for me to go into the subject, of those very different sects, of which the present Council consisted. But, I would rather take occasion from hence to remark, what an awful day must it have been, in the Jewish Church, when the Seventy, or Sanhedrim, forming the High Court for judgment in all things sacred, was made up of such a motley body of men. Reader! do, I beseech you, look at the Scripture account of the Lord’s institution of this Council, as stated in the book of Numbers. Attend to what the Lord himself said, concerning this Council of Seventy of the Elders, chosen for this express purpose. Remark Jehovah’s promise, of putting his Spirit upon them; and then, look at this degenerate Council, with such a character as Ananias at the head of them! Oh! what an awful change! See Num_11:16-17. See also Act_4:7 and Commentary.

CALVI�, "6.And when Paul knew. The policy − (529) of Paul, whereof Luke

maketh mention, doth seem not to beseem the servant of Christ. For the subtilty

which he used was inwrapped in dissimulation, which was not far from a lie. He

saith that the state of his cause did consist in the resurrection of the dead: but we

know that the strife arose about other matters: because he disannulled the

ceremonies, because he admitted the Gentiles into the covenant of salvation. I

answer, that though these things be true, yet did not he lie. For he doth neither deny

that he was accused of other matters, neither doth this make the whole controversy

Page 47: Acts 23 commentary

to consist in one point; but he saith truly that the Sadducees were therefore offended

with him, because he did hold the resurrection of the dead. He knew that those who

had conspired together against him were enemies also one to another. − (530) He

knew that his own conscience was clear; and it had been an easy matter for him to

prove his cause good before just judges. Yet because he seeth them cry out on him

clamorously, and that he had no place granted to defend himself, he setteth his

enemies together by the ears. Whereby it doth also appear, that they were carried

away through ignorance and blind zeal. Therefore we must note that Paul did so

begin, as that he was desirous truly and plainly to unfold the whole matter; and that

he did not craftily refuse to make a pure and sound confession, such as, the servants

of Christ ought to make; but because the way was stopt before him, neither could he

be heard, he used the last remedy, − (531) to declare that his adversaries were

carried headlong with blind hatred. For the end doth show, that those are not

guided with reason or judgment, who are carried out of the way by mutual discord.

�ow, if any man, which darkeneth the light of doctrine, excuse his craft, by the

example of Paul, he is easily refuted. For it is one thing for a man to provide for

himself alone with the loss of truth, and another to lead the professed enemies of

Christ from resisting him, that they may strive among themselves. −

Furthermore, we see the nature of the wicked, though they disagree among

themselves like enemies, yet when they are to make war against the gospel, they

forget their own garboils [strifes]. For Satan, the father of discord, doth procure this

one consent only among his, that they may be of one mind and of one affection, to

extinguish godliness. So we see that the factions which are in Popery hot, − (532) are

quiet only so long as they join hand in hand to oppress the gospel. For which cause,

the disciples of Christ must be more courageous to foster and nourish truth, that,

being joined together, they may the better resist. Also, we gather by this what

manner of peace the Scripture commendeth unto us. Christ saith that the peace-

makers are the children of God, ( Matthew 5:9) and this is true, that they must do

what they can to bring all men that they may grow together − (533) under the Lord.

Yet this doth not hinder but that we may, (fighting under the banner of the same

Lord) as it were, with the sound of the trumpet, stir up the wicked, that they may,

like Midianites, one slay another, ( Jude 7:22) so that both simplicity of zeal, and the

wisdom of the Spirit, direct us hither. −

One part were Sadducees. We see here again, as in a glass, how deformed and

confused the ruin of the Church was at that day. Faith is the soul of the Church;

nothing is more proper to faith than agreement, nothing more contrary than sects.

And this thing must needs follow, when every man (setting aside the word of God)

did draw his disciples unto his own inventions. For there is no other holy bond of

unity than the natural and plain − (534) truth of God. So soon as men depart from

that, no marvel if they be dispersed and drawn hither and thither like members

pulled asunder. −

Therefore, the beginning of sects among the Jews was the corruption of the law; like

Page 48: Acts 23 commentary

as the Lord did revenge the profanation of his word, which was corrupt with diverse

inventions of men, with like punishment in Popery. Wherefore, we must the more

fear, lest horrible and more lamentable scatterings hang over our heads than was

that which was in time of Popery, whereof there appear some tokens. And no

marvel, seeing we provoke the Lord to wrath so many ways with our

unthankfulness. But though the face of the Church be blotted and blurred with

many spots and blots; and what manner of deformity soever fall out hereafter, let us

comfort ourselves with this, that as God was careful then to deliver the Church

wonderfully from destruction, so through his grace there shall always some seed

continue. It cannot be, indeed, but that godly minds will somewhat despair, when

they see things so far out of order; but let us learn straightway to hold up that

buckler, that the Lord, who, in such a thick mist of errors, in such a heap of

superstitions, in the unbridled licentiousness of sects, did preserve his Church

among the Jews, will never suffer the same to be quite put out wholly in the world. −

The same thing did likewise happen in Popery. For when as the worship of God was

overthrown there, the doctrine of salvation was oppressed, the kingdom of Christ

was thrown down, and ungodliness did openly reign, yet God did save certain

hidden remnants, and there was always some wheat in the chaff. It is very profitable

to confer these examples together. When as we inveigh at this day against Popery,

the hired patrons thereof cry out on the other side, that nothing is more absurd than

that we should imagine that the Church of God was extinguished during many ages,

as if we did imagine that God had no people left, when those had forsaken him who

ought to have maintained his pure worship. Yea, we complain that those tyrants did

corrupt the Church, that the temple was by them profaned, so that it did not greatly

differ from an hog’s-sty, that the flock of Christ was scattered abroad, and his

sheepfold broken down. Finally, that the Church was hidden from the eyes of men,

yet so that the Lord knew his elect, though they were dispersed, and did brood them

under his wings. And by this it appeareth how foolishly the Papists brag and boast

of the titles of honor, in that not the common sort, or any private men, but the

priests themselves did in times past divide the Jewish church by deadly dissension. −

Wherefore, there is no cause why we should be afraid stoutly to resist the pride of

the Pope and of all his adherents, with whom we have the same combat which the

prophets and apostles had with the priests of their time. And as the reverence of the

Church did not keep back holy men, but that they did molest the tyranny of the

wicked priests, so we must not be terrified with vain visures, [masks] under which

the Papists do vainly boast, seeing they have, notwithstanding, cast from them the

doctrine of godliness. It is certain that the people were then divided into three sects;

but Luke doth only make mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees, omitting the

Essenes, because it was most fit for his purpose thus to do. And though this be the

common opinion concerning their names, that the former took their name of

separating, because they withdrew themselves from the company of other men, by

reason of their reigned holiness; and that the second sort took their name of

righteousness, as if they were called zeduchim; notwithstanding, for mine own part,

as I have said elsewhere, I am rather of their mind who say that the Pharisees took

their name of interpreting. For phrus signifieth exposition, whereupon also

Page 49: Acts 23 commentary

interpreters are called phruschim; and we know that the Pharisees, being not

content with the natural doctrine of the law and prophets, did put in many

inventions which they said they received − (535) of the fathers. −

“ Stratagema,” stratagem.

“ Intestinis dissidiis laborare,” were involved in intestine dissensions.

“ Extremo remedio,” an extreme remedy.

“ Fervent,” prevail.

“ Fraterne,” like brothers, omitted.

“ Simplex et genuina,” simple and genuine.

“ Per marius tradita jactabant,” boasted, bad been handed down.

COFFMA�, "This writer has no sympathy at all for the views of writers like Farrar

who "on moral grounds," no less, are critical of what Paul here did. There was no

fault whatever on the part of Paul in setting those mad-dogs at each other's throats

instead of his own. He well knew the schismatic condition of the Sanhedrin and very

wisely took advantage of it in order to save his own life.

The resurrection of the dead ... The so-called "moral problem" comes here. Was it

strictly true that Paul had been brought before them because of his teaching on the

doctrine of the resurrection? Well, of course it was. As Alexander Campbell noted:

The literal resurrection of the dead, in the person of the Son of Mary and the Son of

God, was the omnipotent argument, wielded with irresistible power by the

eyewitnesses of the fact, against Sadduceeism and every form of materialism and

infidelity, which any form of philosophy, falsely so-called, has ever obtruded upon

mankind.[12]

That Paul on this occasion elected to state the fundamental precept of Christianity

in such a manner as to divide his foes was a stroke of genius and should be praised

and appreciated. When Jesus appeared to Paul later on that same occasion (that

night), there was not one word of blame or censure.

E�D�OTE:

[12] Alexander Campbell, Acts of the Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation

Publishing House), p. 155.

COKE, "Acts 23:6. Of the hope and resurrection, &c.— The apostle here refers

particularly to the resurrectionof Jesus, and, by him, of all mankind. All the Jews,

long before, knew this to be the Christian doctrine; and therefore here was no fraud

nor artful gloss to obtain favour with the Pharisees; but only an appeal to their

Page 50: Acts 23 commentary

prevailing doctrine, as a point in which the apostle agreed with them, and as what

greatly favoured the Christian doctrine which he preached, and for which he

suffered. See Acts 4:2; Acts 5:17.

ELLICOTT, "(6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees . . .—

We recognise the same parties in the council as there had been twenty-five years

before. Whether they sat in groups on different sides, after the manner of the

Government and Opposition benches in the House of Commons, or whether St. Paul

recognised 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, it may be, 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 �icodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, 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?”

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:6-8. But when Paul perceived — γνους δε ο παυλος, Paul

knowing, in consequence of his being personally acquainted with many whom he

saw sitting round; that one part of the council were Pharisees, and the other

Sadducees, cried out, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee — I am such both by

birth and education, as also by my own free choice, having voluntarily attached

myself to that sect: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question

— Meaning, that he was brought before them as a criminal for preaching the

resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as a proof of the resurrection of all the dead at

the last day. Certainly this was a principal part (though not the whole) of the truth,

since the chief thing which enraged the Sadducees against Christianity, was the

demonstration it gave to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they so eagerly

opposed. When he had so said, there arose a dissension — A disagreement and

contention producing a separation between the Pharisees and Sadducees, several

Page 51: Acts 23 commentary

persons of each sect becoming warm in the debate. For the Sadducees say there is no

resurrection — Of the dead. See on Matthew 22:23. �either angel nor separate

spirit — It seems strange that the Sadducees should deny that there were angels,

considering that they acknowledged the authority of the five books of Moses, in

which mention is frequently made of angels; but it seems they either understood the

passages that speak of angels, in those books, allegorically, or, as Dr. Whitby

observes, supposed that when they are said to appear, they were framed at that

particular time for that purpose, and afterward ceased to have any being: so that,

after the giving of the law, at least, no angel existed. And with regard to their

denying the existence of spirits, the meaning probably is, not that they denied God

to be a spirit, or that there was any spirit in man, but, as Josephus testifies, they

denied, της ψυχης την διαµονην, the permanency of the soul after death, or, that

any spirits existed in a state of separation from men’s bodies. But the Pharisees

confess both — Both the resurrection and the existence of angels and separate

spirits.

CO�STABLE, "Paul recognized that he could not get a fair trial in a court that did

not even observe the law it purported to defend, so he changed his tactics. He

decided to divide the jury and began his defense again ("Men brethren"). This time

he took the offensive.

The issue of the resurrection of the dead was fundamental in Paul's case (cf. Acts

17:32). Israel's national hope of deliverance by her Messiah rested on the

resurrection of that Messiah as predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. By raising the

old controversy of whether resurrection is possible, Paul divided his accusers.

"Paul keeps coming back to the theme of hope and resurrection even when it no

longer provokes disruption (cf. Acts 24:15; Acts 24:21; Acts 28:20), and it will be a

central theme in Paul's climactic defense speech before King Agrippa (Acts 26:6-8;

Acts 26:23). Paul is doing more than injecting a controversial subject into the

Sanhedrin hearing. He is trying to change the entire issue of his trial, and he will

persist in this effort in subsequent scenes. Therefore, the significance of Paul's

statement that he is on trial 'concerning hope and resurrection of the dead' can be

understood only by considering the development of this theme in later scenes."

[�ote: Tannehill, 2:287.]

PETT, "We are not told the details of the proceedings that followed this rather

inauspicious opening. Some discussion clearly took place and it would seem that no

one was quite sure what he was guilty of and it seems probable, in view of what

follows, that the Sadducees began to harp on about his claim that ‘angels’ had

spoken to him and refer to his talk about Jesus having risen from the dead. Both

these ideas would be totally unacceptable to them, but they were not sufficient to

condemn a man for. �o alternative charge of any weight appears to have been put

forward. The whole situation seems to have been remarkably vague.

So we need not assume that what is said in this verse happened immediately. Indeed

it actually probably arose from things that were being said, which were being

Page 52: Acts 23 commentary

allowed to pass unnoticed simply because the Pharisees were too busy disdaining

Paul and not sufficiently busy in following what was being said. But Paul’s astute

mind recognised only too well the true significance behind some of the things being

said by the Sadducean opposition, things which the Pharisees were allowing to slip

by because their minds were on Paul as someone worthy to be condemned.

Thus when he surveyed the Council and recognised there a number who would in

fact agree with his main proposition, the resurrection from the dead, and should

have been supporting him more vociferously in his claim that angels spoke to men,

that is, if they had been properly following what lay behind what was being said, he

decided to draw their attention to this fact.

We must not see this as just a ploy. Paul, who saw these proceedings as having

become weighed down by inessentials, was genuinely concerned to establish the

truth of the resurrection, and of ‘heavenly beings’ speaking to men, and of his

defence of them, especially in the eyes of Claudius Lysias. That was after all what

his testimony had been all about. And he would thus want the trial to follow that

course. He certainly did not want to finish up condemned on false grounds simply

because of the prejudice of the Sadducees reacting against his Pharisaic beliefs. If he

was to be condemned let it be for something worth while, something that will enable

Claudias Lysias to recognise that what he is being charged with is simply a subject

on which the Jews themselves were in dispute. For the trial to become a dispute

about Jewish teaching would strongly aid his case.

Furthermore, once the subject of the trial altered and became fixed on the

resurrection he would then be able to remind them that Jesus had risen from the

dead. That was what he really wanted men’s thoughts to be concentrated on, and

the arguments to be about.

So he points out that what he is really being condemned for is something that is

dearly held by a number of them, the hope of the resurrection. For every genuine

Pharisee lived his life with only one final aim in view, that he might attain eternal

life and the resurrection from the dead.

‘I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees, touching the hope and resurrection of the dead

I am called in question’ he declares. Let all now recognise what is central in his

thinking, the resurrection from the dead. This is what his ministry is all about, life

from the dead. From this point on this subject of the ‘hope of the resurrection’

becomes a theme in Acts, appearing again in Acts 24:15; Acts 26:6-8, and being

sandwiched between two descriptions of the appearance of the risen Jesus. His trial

as it is being conducted here, he points out, should have nothing to do with the

trumped up charges that have been previously brought. It is the basic teaching

about angels and the resurrection and the afterlife and how they are viewed and

whether they are accepted that is the important question. That is the real reason

why the High Priest and his set are so strongly against him, and want to condemn

him, because of the Sadducean prejudice against the resurrection and against

angels, and the Pharisees among them do not seem to be noticing it. Paul felt that it

Page 53: Acts 23 commentary

was time that the Pharisees supported him on this.

Some have referred the reference to ‘the hope’ as meaning the hope of the Messiah,

which was also held by the Pharisees, to be held along with that of the resurrection.

However, Acts 24:15 suggests that ‘the hope’ is of the resurrection of all men, both

the just and the unjust. On the other hand Acts 26:6-8 might be seen as confirming

that the hope in mind is the hope of both the Messiah and the resurrection. This

would also tie in with Acts 17:18, ‘Jesus and the resurrection’.

7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between

the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the

assembly was divided.

BAR�ES, "A dissension - A dispute, or difference.

And the multitude - The council. Compare Act_14:4. The Pharisees embraced, as he desired and expected, his side of the question, and became his advocates, in opposition to the Sadducees, who were arrayed against him.

CLARKE,"And the multitude was divided - St. Paul, perceiving the assembly to consist of Sadducees and Pharisees, and finding he was not to expect any justice, thought it best thus to divide the council, by introducing a question on which the Pharisees and Sadducees were at issue. He did so; and the Pharisees immediately espoused his side of the question, because in opposition to the Sadducees, whom they abhorred, as irreligious men.

GILL, "And when he had so said,.... He stopped and made a pause:

and there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; about the things which he had spoken of, particularly the resurrection of the dead; and this was what the apostle intended, so that his end was answered by the speech he made:

and the multitude was divided; that is, the members of the sanhedrim were divided, some being on one side of the question, and some on the other; for this multitude cannot design the multitude of the common people, who were not convened together on this occasion.

HE�RY, "3. This occasioned a division in the council. It is probable that the high priest sided with the Sadducees (as he had done Act_5:17, and made it to appear by his

Page 54: Acts 23 commentary

rage at Paul, Act_23:2), which alarmed the Pharisees so much the more; but so it was, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Act_23:7), for this word of Paul's made the Sadducees more warm and the Pharisees more cool in the

prosecution of him; so that the multitude was divided; eschisthē - there was a schism, a quarrel among them, and the edge of their zeal began to turn from Paul against one another; nor could they go on to act against him when they could not agree among themselves, or prosecute him for breaking the unity of the church when there was so little among them of the unity of the spirit. All the cry had been against Paul, but now there arose a great cry against one another, Act_23:9. So much did a fierce furious spirit prevail among all orders of the Jews at this time that every thing was done with clamour and noise; and in such a tumultuous manner were the great principles of their religion stickled for, by which they received little service, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Gainsayers may be convinced by fair reasoning, but never by a great cry.

JAMISO�, "

COFFMA�, "Paul's identification of himself as a Pharisee is also offensive to some

people; but it should be remembered that the "noble Pharisee" must never be

identified with the Pharisees whom Jesus denounced. See my Commentary on

Matthew, Matthew 3:7, for classifications of Pharisees. Many priests became

Christians (Acts 6:7), most of whom were doubtless Pharisees; and it is very likely

that much of Luke's gospel (Luke 9:51-19:28) was researched through Luke's

interviews with such Pharisees (then Christians) while Paul suffered the two whole

years incarceration in Caesarea. The true and righteous Pharisees, of whom Paul

must be reckoned, obeyed the gospel. Paul's words in this passage have the effect of

saying, "Only such as I am are the TRUE Pharisees."

The notion that Paul's claiming to be a Pharisee in this situation was improper, is

nullified altogether by the fact that he also made the same claim before King

Agrippa (Acts 26:5) and in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 3:5); thus there

was nothing unusual about the identification of himself with the Pharisees here.

PETT 7-8, "This immediately made the Pharisees wake up and concentrate on the

case, and they then began to take up certain points that they had previously let slip

by, recognising the truth in what Paul had drawn their attention to. They may have

been sceptical about angels speaking to Paul but they were not sceptical about

angels in general. They believed firmly in them. So they now argued that it was not

reasonable to dismiss his claims simply on the grounds that angels did not exist.

Perhaps angels had spoken to Paul. Who could tell?

This then led to dissension between the two sides as they argued the possibility of

angels speaking at all, and whether the resurrection could occur. After all, Paul’s

defence, assuming that it was anything like that before the crowds, had included

references to angels, and to the resurrection (note Acts 22:9-11 where this is made

clear). So the truth or not of these questions was not a side issue, it was important.

His case was bound to be dismissed by the Sadducees, who considered such things

ridiculous, but surely it should not be viewed like that by the Pharisees? Surely they

Page 55: Acts 23 commentary

should give it more careful consideration.

8 (The Sadducees say that there is no

resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor

spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

BAR�ES, "For the Sadducees say - They believe.

No resurrection - Of the dead. By this doctrine they also understood that there was no future state, and that the soul did not exist after death. See the notes on Mat_22:23.

Neither angel - That there are no angels. They deny the existence of good or bad angels. See the notes on Mat_3:7.

Nor spirit - Nor soul. That there is nothing but matter. They were materialists, and supposed that all the operations which we ascribe to mind could be traced to some modification of matter. The Sadducees, says Josephus (Jewish Wars, book ii. chapter 8, section 14), “take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades.” “The doctrine of the Sadducees is this,” says he (Antiq., book 18, chapter 1, section 4), “that souls die with the bodies.” The opinion that the soul is material, and that there is nothing but matter in the universe, has been held by many philosophers, ancient and modern, as well as by the Sadducees.

Confess both - Acknowledge, or receive both as true; that is, that there is a future state, and that there are spirits distinct from matter, as angels, and the disembodied souls of people. The two points in dispute were:

(1) Whether the dead would be raised and exist in a future state; and,

(2) Whether mind was distinct from matter. The Sadducees denied both, and the Pharisees believed both. Their belief of the Latter point was, that spirits existed in two forms - that of angels, and that of souls of people distinct from the body.

CLARKE,"The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection - It is strange, since these denied a future state, that they observed the ordinances of the law; for they also believed the five books of Moses to be a revelation from God: yet they had nothing in view but temporal good; and they understood the promises in the law as referring to these things alone. In order, therefore, to procure them, they watched, fasted, prayed, etc., and all this they did that they might obtain happiness in the present life. See the account of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Mat_3:7; Mat_16:1.

GILL, "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,.... Of the dead,

Page 56: Acts 23 commentary

being ignorant of the Scriptures, and the power of God; see Mat_22:23.

neither angel nor spirit; the Ethiopic version reads, "nor Holy Spirit": but the sense seems to be, that they did not believe any such species of beings as angels, nor indeed any spirits whatever, which were immaterial or immortal; for as for the spirit or soul of man, they took that to be only the temperament of the body, and that it died with it, and did not exist in any separate state after this life: for so Josephus (x) says, that they deny the permanence of the soul, and rewards and punishments in the invisible state. And, according to the Talmudic (y) writers, they denied that there was any other world than this:

but the Pharisees confess both; the resurrection of the dead, and that there are spirits, both angels and the souls of men, which are immortal. Josephus, in the place before referred to, says, that they hold that every soul is incorruptible or immortal; and that they held the resurrection of the dead, is manifest from the Talmud (z), and other writings of theirs; the Syriac version renders it, "the Pharisees confess all these things"; to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions.

JAMISO�, "the Sadducees say ... there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit— (See on Luk_20:37).

the scribes ... of the Pharisees’ part ... strove, saying, We find no evil in this man, but— as to those startling things which he brings to our ears.

if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him— referring, perhaps, to his trance in the temple, of which he had told them (Act_22:17). They put this favorable construction upon his proceedings for no other reason than that they had found him one of their own party. They care not to inquire into the truth of what he alleged, over and above their opinions, but only to explain it away as something not worth raising a noise about. (The following words, “Let us not fight against God,” seem not to belong to the original text, and perhaps are from Act_5:39. In this case, either the meaning is, “If he has had some divine communication, what of that?” or, the conclusion of the sentence may have been drowned in the hubbub, which Act_23:10 shows to have been intense).

CALVI�, "8.The Sadducees say. Though Luke maketh mention of three points

wherein these sects did dissent, yet shortly after he bringeth − (536) them to two,

because there is like respect to be had of spirits and of angels. Therefore, he saith

that the Pharisees did confess both; to wit, that the dead shall rise again, and that

human and angelical spirits are immortal. And here Luke declareth in what sense

the apostle professed himself to be a Pharisee, not because he did subscribe to all

their inventions, but only in the resurrection of the dead. We know how sharply

Christ reproveth their errors, ( Matthew 22:29) therefore, it had been good that

some exception had been added, − (537) lest any man might think that Paul was one

with them in all things. �ow, though the Sadducees did deny the resurrection, yet

may we not think that they were altogether like to the Epicures, [Epicureans]. For

they did confess that the world is governed by the providence of God, and that every

man is rewarded for his works. In this point they were sounder than the Epicures,

[Epicureans]. But they did dote too grossly, when they included the rewards of

righteousness and the punishments of wickedness in this life. For that I may omit

the Scripture, experience doth teach, that as well the godly as the ungodly are either

punished with many miseries, or else gently − (538) dealt withal; and that the

Page 57: Acts 23 commentary

wicked do oftentimes live in wealth and pleasures, when as the worshippers of God

are oftentimes miserably tormented; as it is Psalms 73:4. Therefore, whosoever

esteemeth the judgment of God by the present estate of men, whether it be good or

bad, he must needs fall away from faith at length unto Epicurish contempt of God. −

�ow, this is beastly blockishness to rest in an uncertain and transitory life, and not

to be wise above − (539) the earth. For which cause we must flee from that error as

from a detestable monster. For though godliness have the promises of the earthly

life also, yet because we be most miserable if our hope stay still in this world, the

children of God must begin with this, that they may lift up their eyes toward heaven,

and think continually upon the glory of the last resurrection. −

�either angel nor spirit. This place is expounded two manner of ways. − (540) Many

refer it unto the Holy Ghost, which seemeth to be unlikely. For howsoever the

Sadducees be to be holden excused in other errors, yet because the Scripture doth so

often repeat the name of the Spirit, I will scarce believe that they denied that which

the Pharisees believed only lightly and obscurely. For even these men had no distinct

faith concerning the Holy Spirit, that they did acknowledge the proper person of the

Spirit in the substance of God. − (541) Some will have angel and spirit to signify one

thing, − (542) as if one thing were spoken twice. But to what end was it to repeat a

thing which was plain enough? I warrant you, that member which followeth did

deceive them, where Luke seemeth to make no distinction. But we showed the

reason before; because, seeing the souls of men and angels are of one and the same

nature and substance, they be both placed in one order. Therefore, I do not doubt

but that this is Luke’s true meaning, that the Sadducees did deny angels, and also

all manner of spirits. −

�ow, forasmuch as Paul crieth that he is a Pharisee in this point of doctrine, he doth

flatly condemn all brain-sick fellows, who at this day are in the same error. For

there be certain profane and unlearned men who dream that angels and devils are

nothing else but good and evil inspirations; and lest they want some color, they say

that all that came from the heathen which the Scripture hath concerning good and

evil angels, whereas that opinion which was common in the world had his [its]

beginning from the heavenly doctrine. But the heathen did with their lies pollute

that doctrine which they had from the Fathers. As touching men’s souls, because

even at this day certain miscreants do feign that the souls do vanish away in death

until the day of the resurrection, their madness is likewise refuted by the testimony

of Luke. −

“ Restringit, it,” restricts.

“ Itaque addenda fuit exceptio,” therefore, it was necessary to add the exception.

“ Benigne et indulgenter,” kindly and indulgent1y.

“ �ec sapere,” and not have a feeling or relish.

Page 58: Acts 23 commentary

“ Tribus modis,” in three ways.

“ Propriam Spiritus hypostasin... in Dei essentia,” the proper personality of the

Spirit in the divine essence.

“ Synonnyma esse,” to be synonymous.

COKE, "Acts 23:8. For the Sadducees, &c.— "For, on one hand, the Sadducees,

those freethinkers of the age, deny that there will be a resurrection of the dead, or

that there is any such permanent being, as an angel, in the invisible world, or a

separate spirit of man that survives the death of the body, and subsists in a state of

disunion from it: but, on the contrary, the Pharisees, the strictest sect of the Jews,

contend earnestly for the certainty of the resurrection of the body, and the existence

of spiritual beings, both of the angelic and human rank, in the other world."

ELLICOTT, "(8) The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection.—On the general

teaching of the Sadducees, see �ote on Matthew 22:23. Their denial of the existence

of angels and spirits seems at first inconsistent with the known facts that they

acknowledged the divine authority of the Pentateuch, which contains so many

narratives of angelophanies, and were more severe than others in their

administration of the Law. The great body of the higher priestly class were, we

know, mere Sadducees (Acts 5:17); and what, on their principles, was the meaning

of the Temple ritual? They were, in fact, carried along by one of the great waves of

thought which were then passing over the ancient world, and were Epicureans and

Materialists without knowing it, just as the Pharisees were, even to the eye of a

writer like Josephus (Life, c. 3), the counterpart of the Stoics. For them the “angels”

of the Pentateuch were not distinct beings, but evanescent manifestations of the

divine glory.

�ISBET, "THE MI�ISTRY OF A�GELS

‘The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.’

Acts 23:8

The scene is changed. St. Paul, released by Lysias, pleads his cause before the

Sanhedrin, and his declaration that he is a Pharisee and that it was ‘of the hope and

resurrection of the dead’ that he was called in question, caused a violent dispute, for

‘the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.’ It is to a

question associated with their position that I desire to draw your attention.

The ministry of angels! The subject is a difficult one, for angels are in the

background of our faith, and when we bring the background of a picture forward,

we may interfere with the proper centre and subject of the whole. As to us the

centre, the beginning, and the end of our faith is the Lord Christ. I limit myself now

to the ministry of angels for men.

I. Angel-guardians of children.—How many of us are interested in little children!

Yet they have other friends—friends who watch in heaven as we watch on earth. To

our interest is joined their kindred care. If ever in our occupations we forget the

Page 59: Acts 23 commentary

children, forget to pray for them, forget to commit them to God, those above are not

so unmindful. In heaven the angel of the child always beholds the face of the Father

of Jesus. The Son of Man wills it so—He declares it to be so; and this angel is a part

of Christ’s ministry to seek and to save. Peaceful, then, may be the days of a really

Christian household, and sweet their rest, when Jesus and His angels are keeping

watch above and around.

II. Angels encouraging youth.—Jacob had received the last embrace and the last

blessing. As night spread itself around, he looked for a place among the rocks, and

there he lay to pass his first night from home. And as he slept, there came to him,

not a dream, but a true and purposed vision. There was a ladder set up upon the

earth, and the top of it reaching to heaven. There was a friendless man lying below,

and there was the true promising God standing above; and there was spoken the

Word which has lasted true for three thousand years; and there too were the angels,

surely not less true, going up and down. How many of the young have to go out into

life, more or less alone, and to make their way as best they can, their journey weary,

their resting-places rough, and the prospect dark around them! But still, if they only

knew it, they are not alone. Their solitude is peopled. The ladder is fixed. Above

stands the Saviour of Israel, and angels are passing between. How safe in this

multitudinous loneliness to feel, ‘My Saviour reads my heart; my angel sees my

doings!’ And, oh, what a good work for all who have won influence with youth, to

throw that spark of better purpose into the conscience of the young, which will

rescue duty from the langours of routine, and quicken them to their true life for

themselves and Christ!

III. The ministry of angels in the circumstances and emergencies of life.—Here in

the incessant whirl, a good man too often gets caught in the machinery of business.

He finds himself mixed up with doubtful companions, and doubtful transactions.

His soul is vexed, but his feet are entangled. Then is the Lord’s time, and He sends

His servant to help; and, led by the hand of angels, Lot escapes from the city. Or a

good man is sometimes depressed in religious despondency. ‘It is enough; now,

Lord, take away my life, for I am no better than my fathers.’ Then comes the angel

of comfort, and with loving touches wakes the Christian from inaction, brings him

again to the ministrations of grace: ‘Arise, and eat, Elijah, because the journey is too

great for thee.’ And in the strength of that meat indeed the tired soul finds new

strength, and presses on towards the mount of God.

In short, through all the long parable of our life, the holy angels do their service to

Christ in ministering to the heirs of salvation.

We do not intrude ourselves into things we have not seen. We follow the sure

warrant of the Bible truth. We are unbeguiled by any majesty less august than that

of Christ, but still we believe ‘we are come unto an innumerable company of angels.’

Rev. Canon F. T. Crosse.

Illustration

Page 60: Acts 23 commentary

‘Every man, says a Turkish allegory, has two angels—one on his right shoulder and

another on his left. When he does anything good, the angel on his right shoulder

writes it down in his book and seals it, because what is done is done for ever. When

he has done evil, the angel on his left shoulder writes it down; he waits till midnight;

if before that the man bows down his head and exclaims, “Gracious Allah, I have

sinned, forgive me,” the angel rubs it out with a sponge; if not, at midnight he seals

it, and the angel on the man’s right shoulder weeps.’

9 There was a great uproar, and some of the

teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up

and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong

with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an

angel has spoken to him?”

BAR�ES, "A great cry - A great clamor and tumult.

The scribes - The learned men. They would naturally be the chief speakers.

Of the Pharisees’ part -Who were Pharisees, or who belonged to that party. The scribes were not a distinct sect, but might be either Pharisees or Sadducees.

We find no evil in this man - No opinion which is contrary to the Law of Moses; no conduct in spreading the doctrine of the resurrection which we do not approve. The importance of this doctrine, in their view, was so great as to throw into the background all the other doctrines that Paul might hold; and, provided this were propagated, they were willing to vindicate and sustain him. A similar testimony was offered to the innocence of the Saviour by Pilate, Joh_19:6.

But if a spirit or an angel ... - They here referred, doubtless, to what Paul had said in Act_22:17-18. He had declared that he had gone among the I Gentiles in obedience to a command which he received in a vision in the temple. As the Pharisees held to the belief of spirits and angels, and to the doctrine that the will of God was often delivered to people by their agency, they were ready now to admit that he had received such a communication, and that he had gone among the Gentiles in obedience to it, to defend their great doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. We are not to suppose that the Pharisees had become the friends of Paul or of Christianity. The true solution of their conduct doubtless is, that they were so inflamed with hatred against the Sadducees that they were willing to make use of any argument against their doctrine. As the testimony of Paul might be turned to their account, they were willing to vindicate him. It is remarkable, too, that they perverted the statement of Paul in order to oppose the Sadducees. Paul had stated distinctly Act_22:17-18 that he had been commanded to go by the Lord, meaning the Lord Jesus. He had said nothing of “a spirit or an angel.” Yet

Page 61: Acts 23 commentary

they would unite with the Sadducees so far as to maintain that he had received no such command from the Lord Jesus. But they might easily vary his statements, and suppose that an “angel or a spirit” had spoken to him, and thus make use of his conduct as an argument against the Sadducees. Men are not always very careful about the exact correctness of their statements when they wish to humble a rival.

Let us not fight against God - See the notes on Act_5:39. These words are missing in many mss. and in some of the ancient versions. The Syriac reads it, “If a spirit or an angel have spoken to him, what is there in this?” that is, what is there unusual or wrong?

CLARKE,"The scribes - arose, and strove - ∆ιεµαχοντο, They contended forcibly - they came to an open rupture with the Sadducees; and, in order to support their own party against them, they even admitted as truth, St. Paul’s account of his miraculous conversion, and therefore they said, if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, etc. He had previously mentioned that Jesus Christ had appeared to him, when on his way to Damascus; and, though they might not be ready to admit the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection, yet they could, consistently with their own principles, allow that the soul of Christ might appear to him; and they immediately caught at this, as furnishing a strong proof against the doctrine of the Sadducees, who neither believed in angel nor spirit, while the Pharisees confessed both.

Let us not fight against God - These words are wanting in ABCE, several others, with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac, Vulgate, and some of the fathers.

GILL, "And there arose a great cry,.... Or noise, a loud clamour; they began to be very noisy, and to talk loud, and in high spirits, one against another:

and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose; there were Scribes in the sanhedrim, and these were some of them on the side of the Sadducees, and some on the side of the Pharisees; though, generally speaking, they agreed with the latter, and are often in Scripture mentioned with them, and for them: however, that part in this sanhedrim that were on their side rose up from their seats,

and strove; that is, contended, disputed, and litigated the point with the Sadducees:

saying, we find no evil in this man; why he should be hated, persecuted, and punished:

but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him; that is, if the Holy Spirit, as the Ethiopic version reads, has inspired him, or God by an angel has revealed anything to him, who has to say anything against it? This they said in agreement with their own principles, and more for the sake of establishing them, and in opposition to the Sadducees, than in favour of Paul:

let us not fight against God; as in Act_5:39. These words are not in the Alexandrian copy, nor in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.

HE�RY, "4. The Pharisees hereupon (would one think it?) took Paul's part (Act_

Page 62: Acts 23 commentary

23:9): They strove, diemachonto - They fought, saying, We find no evil in this man. He had conducted himself decently and reverently in the temple, and had attended the service of the church; and, though it was but occasionally, yet it showed that he was not such an enemy to it as he was said to be. He had spoken very handsomely in his own defence, and given a good account of himself, and had now declared himself orthodox in the great principles of religion, as well as regular and conscientious in his conversation; and therefore they cannot see that he has done any thing worthy of death of bonds. Nay, they go further, “If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him concerning Jesus, and put him upon preaching as he does, though we may not be so far satisfied as to give credit to him, yet we ought to be cautioned not to oppose him, lest we be found fighting against God;” as Gamaliel, who was himself a Pharisee, had argued, Act_5:39. Now here, (1.) We may observe, to the honour of the gospel, that it was witnessed to even by its adversaries, and confessions, not only of its innocency, but of its excellency, were extorted sometimes by the power of truth even from those that persecuted it. Pilate found no fault in Christ though he put him to death, nor Festus in Paul though he detained him in bonds; and the Pharisees here supposed it possible that Paul might have a commission sent him for heaven by an angel to do what he did; and yet it should seem, as elders, they after this joined with the high priest in prosecuting him, Act_24:1. They sinned against the knowledge which they not only had, but sometimes owned, as Christ had said of them, They have both seen and hated both me and my Father, Joh_15:24. Yet, (2.) We will hope that some of them at least did henceforward conceive a better opinion of Paul than they had had, and were favourable to him, having had such a satisfactory account both of his conversation in all good conscience and of his faith touching another world; and then it must be observed to their honour that their zeal for the traditions of the elders, which Paul had departed fRom. was so far swallowed up in a zeal for the great and fundamental doctrines of religion, to which Paul still adhered, that if he will heartily join with them against the Sadducees, and adhere to the hope of the resurrection of the dead, they will not think his shaking off the ceremonial law to be an evil in him, but charitably hope that he walks according to the light God has given him by some angel or spirit, and are so far from persecuting him that they are ready to patronize and protect him. The persecuting Pharisees of the church of Rome are not of this spirit: for let a man be ever so sincere and zealous for all the articles of the Christian faith, yet, if he lay not his neck under the yoke of their church's authority, they find evil enough in him to persecute him unto the death.

II. The chief captain's care and conduct stand him in more stead; for when he has thrown this bone of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees (which set them together by the ears, and gained a fair testimony from the Pharisees), yet he is never the nearer, but is in danger of being pulled in pieces by them - the Pharisees pulling to have him set at liberty, and the Sadducees pulling to have him put to death, or thrown to the people, like Daniel into the den of lions; so that the chief captain is forced to come with his soldiers and rescue him, as he had done, Act_21:32, and Act_22:24. 1. See here Paul's danger. Between his friends and his enemies he had like to have been pulled to pieces, the one hugging him to death, the other crushing him to death, such violences are those liable to that are eminent, and that are become remarkable, as Paul was, who was by some so much beloved and by others so much maligned. 2. His deliverance: The chief captain ordered his soldiers to go down from the upper wards, and to take them by force from among them, out of that apartment in the temple where he had ordered the council to meet, and to bring him into the castle, or tower of Antonio; for he saw he could make nothing of them towards the understanding of the merits of his cause.

Page 63: Acts 23 commentary

CALVI�, "9.There was a great cry. That sedition whereof Luke spake a little before

is more plainly expressed in this place; to wit, that they were not only of diverse

opinions, but did strive clamorously with outcries. Wherefore, ςασις doth signify

somewhat more than dissension. Furthermore, this place doth teach what mischief

disagreements bring with them. For because they take their beginning for the most

part of ambition, men proceed thence unto contention, and straightway

stubbornness breaketh out. When they be come thither, because there is no place

left either for judgment or moderation, they can no longer judge of the cause. Those

who did detest Paul begin at a sudden to defend him. It was well done, if they had

done it with judgment. But because they inveigh against the Sadducees, they are so

inflamed with hatred against them, that they be blind in Paul’s matter. For which

cause we must beware of heat of contention, which disturbeth all things. −

If the Spirit. This ought undoubtedly to be expounded of the Holy Ghost. And

nothing could be spoken either more godly or modestly. For so soon as it is apparent

that any doctrine is revealed from heaven, those do wickedly resist God who do not

receive the same. But how is it that the scribes do so suddenly count Paul a prophet

of God whom they were once ready to have murdered — whom they had

condemned with their prejudice until the contention arose? − (543) Furthermore, as

they did cut their own throats with these words as with a sword, so God would have

them to be to us teachers to instruct us, that we despise not the oracles which come

from heaven. �otwithstanding, we see again that those stand in doubt who take not

good heed, and are not careful to mark the word of God; and that they waver so

often as any thing is brought to light, because they be unworthy to understand the

certain truth. Wherefore, if we be desirous to have our studies governed by the

spirit of discretion, let us apply ourselves to learn.

“ Cum Pharisaeis,” with the Pharisees.

COKE, "Acts 23:9. Let us not fight against God.— When they mentioned it as a

supposable case, that an angel might have spoken to him, they might probably

allude to the many visions and revelations which St. Paul, in his late speech to the

people, had professed to have received. Gamaliel was now dead, otherwise one

would have supposed that he had made this speech, it being so very like that which

he is recorded to have made, ch. Acts 5:39. Party spirit now carried the Pharisees to

say the same things concerning Christianity, which policy and the national

expectations led Gamaliel to say in the place above cited. Instead of cry in the first

clause, several render it, clamour.

ELLICOTT, "(9) Let us not fight against God.—If we could receive these words as

part of the original text, they would be a singularly characteristic reproduction of

the counsel of St. Paul’s master (Acts 5:39). They are, however, wanting in many of

the best MSS. and versions, and were apparently added to complete the sentence

which St. Luke had left in the emphasis of its unfinished abruptness. Possibly its

close was drowned in the tumultuous cries of the Sadducees. The line taken by the

Pharisees is altogether that of Gamaliel. After twenty-five years they have not got

further than the cautious policy of those who halt between two opinions. They give a

Page 64: Acts 23 commentary

verdict of “�ot Guilty” as to the specific charges brought against St. Paul. They

think it possible that he may have received a vision or revelation of some kind. In

the word “spirit” they perhaps admit that the form of Jesus may have appeared to

him as a spectre from the world of the dead.

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:9. And there arose a great cry — A great clamour and quarrel,

so that the edge of their zeal began to turn from Paul against one another. �or could

they go on to act against him, when they could not agree among themselves, or

prosecute him for breaking the unity of the church, when there was among them so

little of the unity of the Spirit. All the cry had been against Paul: but now there

arose a great cry against one another; and so much did a fierce, furious spirit

prevail among all orders of the Jews at this time, that every thing was done, even

respecting religion, with clamour, tumult, and noise. And the scribes of the

Pharisees’ part arose and strove — In the prisoner’s defence. Every sect contains

both learned and unlearned: the former of which are usually the mouth of the

party; saying, We find no evil in this man — And can see no reason for his being

condemned or detained; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken unto him — In the

manner he represents, let us acquiesce, and wait the event, and not fight against

God — Which must end in our ruin. They allude to what Paul had affirmed in his

speech from the stairs, that Jesus, whom they knew to have been dead, was alive,

and had appeared and spoken unto him in his way to Damascus, and again in a

vision. This they interpret of an angel or spirit appearing to him; not allowing that

the person whom they had crucified was really risen from the dead.

CO�STABLE, "The Pharisees sided with Paul, and the Sadducees opposed him.

Their emotional dispute excluded any possibility of a serious examination of Paul's

conduct or even a clarification of the charges against him. The Pharisees likewise

defended Paul's claim to having received a vision on the Damascus road (Acts 22:6-

11) or in the temple (Acts 22:17-21), but the Sadducees repudiated it. The Roman

commander must have thrown up his hands in dismay. For a second time he could

not discover what Paul had done and why so many Jews hated him. Pilate had a

similar problem with Jesus (John 18:28 to John 19:15). Claudius Lysias decided to

take Paul into protective custody in the Fortress.

PETT, "The result was that instead of universal condemnation Paul now suddenly

found that he had some powerful supporters. Some of the Rabbis, recognising that

the truth of what they themselves believed in was at stake here, and was being

arrogantly dismissed, now declared that his words about spirits and angels could

not just be trivialised. That indeed he may be right. Perhaps an angel or spirit had

spoken to him, for such beings did exist. This would certainly strengthen the case

that he had put before the crowds and the chief captain.

“And what if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?” This strictly reads, ‘And if a

spirit has spoken to him or an angel ---?’ leaving the question in the air.

Page 65: Acts 23 commentary

10 The dispute became so violent that the

commander was afraid Paul would be torn to

pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down

and take him away from them by force and bring

him into the barracks.

BAR�ES, "A great dissension - A great tumult, excitement, or controversy.

Into the castle - See the notes on Act_21:34.

CLARKE,"The chief captain - commanded the soldiers to go down - It appears that the chief captain was present during these transactions, and that he had a body of soldiers in readiness in the castle of Antonia; and it was from this that he commanded them to come down; for the rescue and preservation of Paul.

GILL, "And when there arose a great dissension,.... When that was come to a very great height, hot words were spoken, and they were ready to come to blows, and there was like to be a riot and tumult among them:

the chief captain fearing lest Paul should be pulled in pieces of them; either of the Sadducees, whom he had greatly offended and provoked, or of both Sadducees and Pharisees, the one laying hold on him to preserve him from the fury of the other, and the other endeavouring to pluck him out of their hands; and the fears of the chief captain were not so much out of affection to Paul, but lest there should be an uproar, which might issue in sedition, and rebellion against the Roman government, of which the Roman officers were always jealous; and because that Paul was a Roman, and should he suffer him to be destroyed in an illegal manner, he must be accountable for it: wherefore he

commanded the soldiers to go down: either from the castle of Antonia, or from a superior part of the temple, where he with his guards were, to hear this cause before the sanhedrim, to that part where it sat, and Paul was: and

take him by force from among them; if they refused to deliver him up, to make use of their arms:

and bring him into the castle; of Antonia, where he was before.

Page 66: Acts 23 commentary

JAMISO�, "the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled to pieces ... commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force, etc.—This shows that the commandant was not himself present, and further, that instead of the Sanhedrim trying the cause, the proceedings quickly consisted in the one party attempting to seize the prisoner, and the other to protect him.

CALVI�, "10.We see again what a cruel mischief contention is, which so soon as it

doth once wax hot, hath such violent motions, that even most wise men are not well

in their wits. Therefore, so soon as any beginning shall show itself, let us study to

prevent it in time, lest the remedy be too late in bridling it when it is in the middle,

because no fire is so swift as it. As for the chief captain, as he was appointed to be

the minister of God’s providence to save Paul’s life, so he delivereth him now the

second time by his soldiers from death. For though the chief captain defend − (544)

him so diligently, for no other purpose save only that he may prevent uproars and

murder; yet the Lord, who from heaven provided and appointed help for his

servant, doth direct his blind hands thither. −

“ Succurrit,” succour.

COFFMA�, "Dissension ... This was the third riot in two days! And, at that time,

the chief captain was still totally ignorant of any cause for such disturbances. Lysias

had saved Paul's life in each of the three riots, and would be called upon to save it a

fourth time the next day. "He must have been confused and disgusted. What kind of

people were these Jews? He could make no sense out of their words and

actions."[13]

We have speculated somewhat with regard to Paul's insistence on returning to

Jerusalem, even wondering if perhaps there was some degree, at least, of Paul's

being out of complete harmony with the divine will by his refusal to change his

plans. Certainly the disciples at Tyre interpreted the words of the Holy Spirit as a

directive for Paul "not to set foot in Jerusalem" (Acts 21:4); and Luke agreed with

them. Whether or not they were right is immaterial, because Paul did not so

interpret the words of the Spirit but went on to Jerusalem, the others reluctantly

saying, "The will of the Lord be done." In this problem we may have a glimpse of

the truth that men do not always know with dogmatic certainty what the words of

the Holy Spirit mean. Otherwise, it would not be true that "We walk by faith and

not by sight." There must have been some dreadful feelings of uncertainty,

disappointments and grief in Paul's heart, and emotions of fear that perhaps, after

all, he had been wrong about this trip to Jerusalem.

Then came the glorious reassurance from the Lord himself.

E�D�OTE:

[13] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 297.

Page 67: Acts 23 commentary

ELLICOTT, "(10) The chief captain, fearing . . .—We may well believe that the

priest who had been rebuked as a “whited wall” would not willingly forego his

revenge. He, and the Sadducees generally, would now be able to assume the position

of being more devoted defenders of the Law and of the Temple than the Pharisees

themselves. The fear of the chiliarch was naturally heightened by his knowledge that

he was responsible for the life of a Roman citizen. In the barracks of the fortress, as

before, probably in the self-same guardroom as that which had witnessed our

Lord’s sufferings at the hands of Pilate’s soldiers, the prisoner would at least be in

safety.

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:10-11. And when there arose a great dissension — Some of them

urging that he ought to be set at liberty, while others eagerly insisted on his

condemnation; the chief captain, fearing — On being informed of their disorderly

proceedings; lest he should be pulled in pieces of them — Amidst the tumult;

commanded a party of soldiers to go down — From the garrison; to take him by

force from among them — Out of that apartment in the temple where he had

ordered them to meet; and to bring him into the castle Antonia — “What must this

heathen have thought of the worshippers of JEHOVAH, when he saw this assembly

of chief priests, learned scribes, and rulers of Israel, forgetful of what became their

rank, profession, and sacred character; and carried away by such unbridled rage, in

their religious contests, as the Roman senators and magistrates, or principal

persons, would have been ashamed of, even in their eager competition for authority

and pre-eminence?” — Scott. And the night following the Lord stood by him —

Appeared to him in a vision; And said, Be of good cheer, Paul — As he laboured

under singular distresses and persecutions, so he was favoured with extraordinary

assurances of the divine assistance. For as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem —

And all the malice of the Jews has not prevented thee from faithfully discharging

thy commission; so must thou bear witness also at Rome — Thus God now, in due

time, confirms what Paul had before purposed in spirit, Acts 19:21. Another

declaration to the same effect is made by an angel of God, Acts 27:23; particular

promises being usually given when all things appear dark and desperate. For

difficulties and dangers are nothing in the eyes of God; all hinderances only further

his work; and a promise of what is afar off, implies all that necessarily lies between.

Paul shall testify at Rome; therefore he shall come to Rome; therefore he shall

escape the Jews, the sea, and the viper. He shall be brought safe through all

intervening obstacles, dangers, and distresses, that he may bear testimony to the

Romans. How would the defenders of Peter’s supremacy triumph, could they find

but half as much ascribed to him!

PETT, "Indeed feelings now began to rise so high (and we really cannot blame Paul

because they could not discuss reasonably together) that the chief captain who was

observing the proceedings became alarmed and commanded that soldiers take him

by force (the temple police may have tried to interfere) and convey him to the safety

of the fortress.

He must have been in some despair. Here he was stuck with this prisoner, who was a

Roman citizen and therefore difficult to deal with, and it was apparent that none of

Page 68: Acts 23 commentary

his opponents knew what to charge him with. He was having to hold him without

charge and risk any consequences.

11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul

and said, “Take courage! As you have testified

about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in

Rome.”

BAR�ES, "The Lord stood by him - Evidently the Lord Jesus. See the notes on Act_1:24. Compare Act_22:18. The appearance of the Lord in this case was a proof that he approved the course which Paul had taken before the Sanhedrin.

Be of good cheer - It would not be remarkable if Paul, by these constant persecutions, should be dejected in mind. The issue of the whole matter was as yet doubtful. In these circumstances, it must have been especially consoling to him to hear these words of encouragement from the Lord Jesus, and this assurance that the object of his desires would be granted, and that he would be permitted to bear the same witness of him in Rome. Nothing else can comfort and sustain the soul in trials and persecutions but evidence of the approbation of God, and the promises of his gracious aid.

Bear witness also at Rome - This had been the object of his earnest wish Rom_1:10; Rom_15:23-24, and this promise of the Lord Jesus was fulfilled, Act_28:30-31. The promise which was here made to Paul was not directly one of deliverance from the present persecution, but it implied that, and made it certain.

CLARKE,"Be of good cheer, Paul - It is no wonder if, with all these trials and difficulties, St. Paul was much dejected in mind; and especially as he had not any direct intimation from God what the end of the present trials would be: to comfort him and strengthen his faith, God gave him this vision.

So must thou bear witness also at Rome - This was pleasing intelligence to Paul, who had long desired to see that city, and preach the Gospel of Christ there. He appears to have had an intimation that he should see it; but how, he could not tell; and this vision satisfied him that he should be sent thither by God himself. This would settle every fear and scruple concerning the issue of the present persecution.

GILL, "And the night following,.... The day in which Paul was brought before the sanhedrim, and pleaded his own cause before them, and had thrown them into

Page 69: Acts 23 commentary

confusion and division:

the Lord stood by him; the Lord Jesus Christ appeared in a vision to him, and stood very near him, by the side of him, by the bed or couch on which he might lie: and said,

be of good cheer, Paul; though he was now a prisoner in the castle; and though the high priest, and the Sadducees especially, were enraged against him; and though a plot was about to be formed to take away his life; for this exhortation seems to be designed to prepare him for further trials, and to prevent discouragement under them; which shows the great care of Christ over him, his concern for him, and love to him: the word Paul is not in the Alexandrian copy, nor in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; but the calling him by name seems to express not only singular knowledge of him, but greater familiarity and affection; it is in the Arabic version, and in other Greek copies:

for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem; not only in the Christian church, and before the Apostle James, and the elders, but in the Jewish sanhedrim, and before the high priest, Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, where and before whom, though not particularly recorded, he bore a testimony for Jesus, that he was the true Messiah; and that though he died, he was risen from the dead, and was at the right hand of God, and was the only Saviour of men:

so must thou bear witness also at Rome; as he had bore a public and faithful witness to the person, office, and grace of Christ at Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judea; so it was necessary, by the decree of God, and for the glory of Christ, that he should bear a like testimony at Rome, the chief city in the whole world; hereby signifying, that he should not die at Jerusalem, and giving him a hint that he should appeal to Caesar, which he afterwards did.

HE�RY, "III. Divine consolations stood him in most stead of all. The chief captain had rescued him out of the hands of cruel men, but still he had him in custody, and what might be the issue he could not tell. The castle was indeed a protection to him, but withal it was a confinement; and, as it was now his preservation from so great a death, it might be his reservation for a greater. We do not find that any of the apostles or elders at Jerusalem came to him; either they had not courage or they had not admission. Perhaps, in the night following, Paul was full of thoughts and cares what should become of him, and how his present troubles might be turned to answer some good purpose. Then did the Lord Jesus make him a kind visit, and, thought at midnight, yet a very seasonable one (Act_23:11): The Lord stood by him, came to his bed-side, though perhaps it was but a bed of straw, to show him that he was all the day long with him really as sure as he was in the night with him visibly. Note, Whoever is against us, we need not fear if the Lord stand by us; if he undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, and then nothing can come amiss. 1. Christ bids him have a good heart upon it: “Be of good cheer, Paul; be not discouraged; let not what has happened sadden thee, nor let what may yet be before thee frighten thee.” Note, It is the will of Christ that his servants who are faithful should be always cheerful. Perhaps Paul, in the reflection, began to be jealous of himself whether he had done well in what he said to the council the day before; but Christ, by his word, satisfies him that God approved of his conduct. Or, perhaps, it troubled him that his friends did not come to him; but Christ's visit did itself speak, though he had not said, Be of good cheer, Paul. 2. It is a strange argument which he makes use of to encourage him: As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. One

Page 70: Acts 23 commentary

would think this was but cold comfort: “As thou hast undergone a great deal of trouble for me so thou must undergo a great deal more;” and yet this was designed to encourage him; for hereby he is given to understand, (1.) That he had been serving Christ as a witness for him in what he had hitherto endured. It was for no fault that he was buffeted, and it was not his former persecuting of the church that was now remembered against him, however he might remember it against himself, but he was still going on with his work. (2.) That he had not yet finished his testimony, nor was, by his imprisonment, laid aside as useless, but was only reserved for further service. Nothing disheartened Paul so much as the thought of being taken off from doing service to Christ and good to souls: Fear not, says Christ, I have not done with thee, (3.) Paul seems to have had a particular fancy, and an innocent one, to go to Rome, to preach the gospel there, though it was already preached, and a church planted there; yet, being a citizen of Rome, he longed for a journey thither, and had designed it (Act_19:21): After I have been at Jerusalem, I must also see Rome. And he had written to the Romans some time ago that he longed to see them, Rom_1:11. Now he was ready to conclude that this had broken his measures, and he should never see Rome; but even in that Christ tells him he should be gratified, since he desired it for the honour of Christ and to do good.

JAMISO�, "Act_23:11-35. In the fortress Paul is cheered by a night vision - An infamous conspiracy to assassinate him is providentially defeated, and he is dispatched by night with a letter from the commandant to Felix at Caesarea, by whom arrangements are made for a hearing of his cause.

the night following— his heart perhaps sinking, in the solitude of his barrack ward, and thinking perhaps that all the predictions of danger at Jerusalem were now to be fulfilled in his death there.

the Lord— that is, Jesus.

stood by him ... Be of good cheer, Paul; for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou ... also at Rome— that is, “Thy work in Jerusalem is done, faithfully and well done; but thou art not to die here; thy purpose next to ‘see Rome’ (Act_19:21) shall not be disappointed, and there also must thou bear witness of Me.” As this vision was not unneeded now, so we shall find it cheering and upholding him throughout all that befell him up to his arrival there.

HAWKER, "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Pause over this verse for the sweetness of it. How very gracious was it in the Lord Jesus, thus to favor his servant with another vision, as he had done before! (see Act_18:9 and Commentary.) And how blessed in the Lord, by way of shewing him that all the contrivances of his enemies for his destruction at Jerusalem, should not affect his life; that the Lord had business for him yet to perform at Rome. And this was peculiarly consolatory to the Apostle, because though Agabus by the Spirit had prophesied of his being bound at Jerusalem, yet now from the Lord himself he was taught, that at this time he was not to die there. Precious Lord Jesus! who shall count, yea, what imagination of men, or angels, can fully conceive the boundless love of thine heart? And, oh! how sweet to my soul is the recollection, (in the very moment of writing this Poor Man’s Commentary,) that to Paul, upon this occasion here recorded, and upon every other to thy Church and people, all that love of thine, and the communication of it, flows

Page 71: Acts 23 commentary

from thy double nature, thy God-Man love, to endear it ten thousand fold to our souls!

CALVI�, "11.And the night following. Luke declareth that Paul was strengthened

with an oracle, that he might stand courageously against terrible assaults when

things were so far out of order. Surely it could not be but that he was sore afraid,

and that he was sore troubled with the remembrance of things to come. Wherefore,

the oracle was not superfluous. Those former things whereby he was taught that

God cared for him, ought to have sufficed to nourish his hope, and to have kept him

from fainting; but because in great dangers Satan doth oftentimes procure new

fears, that he may thereby (if he cannot altogether overwhelm God’s promises in the

hearts of the godly) at least darken the same with clouds, it is needful that the

remembrance of them be renewed, that faith, being holpen with new props and

stays, may stand more steadfastly. But the sum is, that Paul may behave himself

boldly, because he must be Christ’s witness at Rome also. But this seemeth to be but

a cold and vain consolation, as if he should say, Fear not, because thou must abide a

sorer brunt; for it had been better, according to the flesh, once to die, and with

speed to end his days, than to pine away in bands, and long time to lie in prison. The

Lord doth not promise to deliver him; no, he saith not so much as that he shall have

a joyful end; only he saith, that those troubles and afflictions, wherewith he was too

sore oppressed already, shall continue long. But by this we gather better of what

great importance this confidence is, that the Lord hath respect unto us in our

miseries, though he stretch not forth his hand by and by to help us. −

Therefore, let us learn, even in most extreme afflictions, to stay ourselves upon the

word of God alone; and let us never faint so long as he quickeneth us with the

testimony of his fatherly love. And because oracles are not now sent from heaven,

neither doth the Lord himself appear by visions, we must meditate upon his

innumerable promises, whereby he doth testify that he will be nigh unto us

continually. If it be expedient that an angel come down unto us, the Lord will not

deny even this kind of confirmation. �evertheless, we must give this honor to the

word, that being content with it alone we wait patiently for that help which it

promiseth us. −

Moreover, it did profit some nothing to hear angels which were sent down from

heaven; but the Lord doth not in vain seal up in the hearts of the faithful by his

Spirit those promises which are made by him. And as he doth not in vain beat them

in and often repeat them, − (545) so let our faith exercise itself diligently in the

continual remembrance of them. For if it were necessary that Paul’s faith should be

oftentimes set and stored up with a new help, there is none of us which needeth not

many more helps. Also, our minds must be armed with patience, that they may pass

through the long and troublesome circuits of troubles and afflictions. −

“ Inculcat,” inculcates.

COFFMA�, "Christ himself comforted and strengthened his apostle. Trenchard

Page 72: Acts 23 commentary

analyzed the meaning of this episode thus:

There is not a whisper of reproach but: (a) encouragement from the Lord of all

comfort, (b) the ratification of the witness in Jerusalem, despite all the turbulence;

and (c) confirmation of the purpose that Paul should witness in Rome.[14]

Our Lord's specific assurance that Paul should go to Rome could indicate that

Paul's mind had been deeply troubled by events which he might have thought were

the end of any hopes he had of going to Rome. The very fact of Jesus' appearance to

Paul in this context speaks of the absolute necessity of it.

E�D�OTE:

[14] E. H. Trenchard, A �ew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1969), p. 331.

COKE, "Acts 23:11. The Lord stood by him, &c.— This plainly shews that our

Lord approved of the part which St. Paul had acted before the sanhedrim, though

some had censured it without understanding or considering the circumstance of it.

Witsius observes, that it must have been a greater consolation to so faithful a soldier

of Christ as St. Paul was, having been thus approved and encouraged by his general,

to be led on to further combats, than to be immediately dismissed: and such a

temper he expresses, Philippians 1:20; Philippians 1:26.

ELLICOTT, "(11) Be of good cheer, Paul.—The day had been one of strange

excitement, and most have roused many anxieties. Personal fear as to suffering or

death he was, more than most men, free from; but was his work to be cut short?

Was he to fall a victim to the malice of the Jews? Was the desire, which he had

cherished for many years, to preach the gospel in the great capital of the empire

(Romans 1:13; Romans 15:23) to be frustrated? These questions pressed upon him

in the wakeful night that followed the exhausting day; and, with a nature like St.

Paul’s, such anxieties could not but find expression in his prayers. To those prayers

the “vision and apocalypse of the Lord” of which we now read was manifestly the

answer. To him, tossed on these waves and billows of the soul, as once before to the

Twelve tossing on the troubled waters of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 14:27), there

came the words, full of comfort and of hope, “Be of good cheer.” There might be

delay and suffering, and a long trial of patience, but the end was certain; he was to

reach the goal of Rome.

CO�STABLE, "Paul was undoubtedly wondering how he would ever get out of the

mess in which he found himself. At this critical moment, during the night of the next

day (Gr. te epiouse nykti), the Lord appeared to him again (cf. Acts 9:4-6; Acts 16:9;

Acts 18:9-10; Acts 22:17-21; Acts 27:23-24; Genesis 15:1). The Lord's appearances

to Paul all occurred at great crises in his life. He assured the apostle that he would

bear witness in Rome as he had already done in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). This

revelation is essential to Luke's purpose in writing Acts, and it certainly must have

given Paul confidence as the events that followed unfolded.

Page 73: Acts 23 commentary

"When Jesus' witnesses were previously imprisoned, prison doors were wondrously

opened for them (Acts 5:17-21; Acts 12:1-11; Acts 16:23-26). That is no longer the

case. The Lord's reassurance must take the place of miraculously opening doors.

The divine power that rescues from prison has become a powerful presence that

enables the witness to endure an imprisonment that lasts for years." [�ote:

Tannehill, 2:292.]

"This assurance meant much to Paul during the delays and anxieties of the next two

years, and goes far to account for the calm and dignified bearing which seemed to

mark him out as a master of events rather than their victim." [�ote: Bruce,

Commentary on . . ., p. 455.]

�ISBET, "THE PASTOR’S WAY OF PEACE

‘The Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified

of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.’

Acts 23:11

This was in the Antonian citadel, in the night. The immediate sequel of the text is

the conspiracy for St. Paul’s assassination, when at dawn of day the ‘more than

forty’ arranged how and where they might fall upon their victim.

In such a frame is set this radiant picture. Serene and infinitely at liberty, He Who

always knows the way to the solitudes and sorrows of His people stood by His

Apostle’s side. He called His servant by his name. He placed Himself in sympathetic

contact with his fears. And He lifted him out of them with the sublime reassurance

that the servant was in the path of the Master’s will, and therefore altogether safe in

the escort of the Master’s love and power. The path was developing and ascending.

Jerusalem was about to be exchanged for Rome. And Jesus Christ guarantees St.

Paul’s safety here and his safety there, assuring him of a deep inward continuity

through all the changes, as well as of a rest and refuge amidst all the storms.

There is in the message to St. Paul an intimate relation to ourselves, to the pastors of

to-day. How shall we read that message out?

I. It is a message of the power of Christ to transcend and transfigure difficulty.

II. It is a message that Christ is able to transfigure life’s deep changes, till they are

as it were harmonised into one song by the reconciling magic of His will. From

Jerusalem to Rome, from a place which, with all its alarms, was yet redolent to him

of memory and old ways, to the world-city, dangerously new and different; that was

a great change for St. Paul.

III. What better can I do than move you to pray for your clergy, chosen servants

and messengers of Christ?

(a) Pray that in all their care and labour the Lord may evermore stand by them,

morning, noon, and night, saying to them, at the heart of all circumstances, ‘Fear

not; I am with thee.’

Page 74: Acts 23 commentary

(b) Pray that the sevenfold Spirit may fill their spirit with counsel, and with the

might of truth and love and with the great gift of power for God with men.

(c) Pray that the heavenly Scriptures may be evermore lighted up to them by that

same Spirit, and that the sure Word, in its fullness and its sublime proportion,

which is of God, may be their lamp, and oracle, and song.

(d) Pray that they may have grace faithfully to fulfil their call to be, above all men,

preachers of that Word, and that they may evermore rejoice to set forth from it

before all men our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as our all in all, for this life and the

life to come, for pardon, holiness, and heaven, in His finished work, in His

everlasting working.

—Bishop H. C. G. Moule.

Illustration

‘The responsibility of the congregation was a thought which Bishop Westcott

touched on many times; never, perhaps, with more force than in this passage from

one of his Ordination addresses. “Priest and people act and react one upon the

other. They suffer together, they advance together. If it is true, as we all must admit,

that the priest must use for his people every grace of the Spirit with which he is

endowed, it is no less true that the people on their part must use for their priest that

sevenfold gift which they too received by the apostolic laying on of hands. To them

also is entrusted a stewardship of sacred treasures by which those that have rule

over them must be supported. This truth, this vital truth, has, I think, been

commonly overlooked; and there has followed, naturally, on the one side an

assumption of lordship, and on the other side a suppression of spiritual force.”

PETT, "In fact there was apparently only One person who was satisfied with the

way that things were going, and that night the risen Lord stood by Paul, presumably

visually, and encouraged him (compare Acts 18:9-10; Acts 22:17-21). He told him to

be in good heart, for it was God’s purpose that just as he had testified openly about

Him in Jerusalem, so he would testify in Rome. He was not to see what was

happening as a setback, but as an opportunity. God was in control.

At first sight it might appear to us that Paul’s being in captivity was a hindrance to

the spread of the Good �ews. Think what he could do if he was free, we might say.

But we need to recognise that that might not have been so. Paul was now such a

marked man, and so intensely hated by many Jews in many cities, that wherever he

went his life was in danger. So much so that some followed him around with the aim

of killing him. And what was more this then not only meant that his own life was in

danger, but that it would also cause problems for his companions and for the

churches. He had after all, already been responsible for a number of ‘uprisings’ in a

number of cities, which could always flare up once he visited them again. And now

that he was such a marked man it would not be easy for him to slip in and out

unnoticed. This being so his being directly under the protection of Roman soldiers,

with his companions able to visit him freely, gave him the opportunity to think

Page 75: Acts 23 commentary

through problems and enabled him to run a kind of Bible School and

Correspondence course in complete safety, and at the same time brought great

encouragement to the church because they saw how bravely he faced his trial. They

would not want to let him down. And it would even support his doctrine. For his

doctrine was being substantiated by his life. There is no one who is believed quite as

much as a martyr.

BARCLAY 11-24, "Here we see two things. First, we see the lengths to which the

Jews would go to eliminate Paul. Under certain circumstances the Jews regarded

murder as justifiable. If a man was a public danger to morals and to life they

regarded it as legitimate to eliminate him. So forty men put themselves under a vow.

The vow was called a cherem. When a man took such a vow he said, "May God

curse me if I fail to do this." These men vowed neither to eat nor drink, and put

themselves under the ban of God, until they had assassinated Paul. Fortunately their

plan was laid bare by Paul's nephew. Second, we see the lengths to which the

Roman government would go in order to administer impartial justice. Paul was a

prisoner; but he was a Roman citizen and therefore the commander mobilized a

small army to see him taken in safety to Caesarea to be tried before Felix. It is

strange how the fanatical hatred of the Jews--God's chosen people--contrasts with

the impartial justice of the commander--a heathen in Jewish eyes.

MACLARE�, "CHRIST'S WITNESSES

It had long been Paul’s ambition to ‘preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also.’ His settled policy, as shown by this Book of the Acts, was to fly at the head, to attack the great centres of population. We trace him from Antioch to Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus; and of course Rome was the goal, where a blow struck at the heart might reverberate through the empire. So he had planned for it, and prayed about it, and thought about it, and spoken about it. But his wish was accomplished, as our prayers and purposes so often are, in a manner very strange to him. A popular riot in Jerusalem, a half-friendly arrest by the contemptuous impartiality of a Roman officer, a final rejection by the Sanhedrim, a prison in Caesarea, an appeal to Caesar, a weary voyage, a shipwreck: this was the chain of circumstances which fulfilled his desire, and brought him to the imperial city.

My text comes at the crisis of his fate. He has just been rejected by his people, and for the moment is in safety in the castle under the charge of the Roman garrison. One can fancy how, as he lay there in the barrack that night, he felt that he had come to a turning-point; and the thoughts were busy in his mind, ‘Is this for life or for death? Am I to do any more work for Christ, or am I silenced for ever?’-’And the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul!’ The divine message assured him that he should live; it testified of Christ’s approbation of his past, and promised him that, in recompense for that past, he should have wider work to do. So he passed to the unknown future quietly; and went on his way with the Master by his side.

Now, dear friends, it seems to me that in these great words there lie lessons applying to all Christian people as truly, though in different fashion, as they did to the Apostle, and having an especial bearing on that great enterprise of Christian missions, with which I would connect them in this sermon. I desire, then, to draw out the lessons which seem to

Page 76: Acts 23 commentary

me to lie under the surface of this great promise.

I. To live ought to be, for a Christian, to witness.

The promise in form is a promise of continued testimony-bearing; in its substance, one might say, it is a promise of continued life. Paul is cheered, not by being told that the wrath of the enemy will launch itself at his head in vain, and that he will bear a charmed life through it all, but by being told that there is work for him to do yet. That is the shape in which the promise of life is held out to him. So it always ought to be; a Christian man’s life ought to be one continuous witnessing for that Lord Christ who stood by the Apostle in the castle at Jerusalem.

Let me just urge this upon you for a few moments. It seems to me that to raise up witnesses for Himself is, in one aspect, the very purpose of all Christ’s work. You and I, dear brethren, if we have any living hold of that Lord, have received Him into our hearts, not only in order that for ourselves we may rejoice in Him, but in order that, for ourselves rejoicing in Him, we may ‘show forth the virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvellous light.’ There is no creature so great as that he is not regarded as a means to a further end; and there is no creature so small but that he has the right to claim happiness and blessing from the Hand that made him. Jesus Christ has drawn us to Himself, that we may know the sweetness of His presence, the cleansing of His blood, the stirring and impulse of His indwelling life in us for our own joy and our own completion, but also that we may be His witnesses and weapons, according to that great word: ‘This people have I formed for Myself. They shall shew forth My praise.’

God has ‘shined into our hearts in order that we may give,’ reflecting the beams that fall upon them, ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.’ Brother and sister, if you have the Christian life in your souls, one purpose of your possessing it is that you may bear witness for Him.

Again, such witness-bearing is the result of all true, deep, Christian life. All life longs to manifest itself in action. Every conviction that a man has seeks for utterance; especially so do the beliefs that go deepest and touch the moral and spiritual nature and relationships of a man. He that perceives them is thereby impelled to desire to utter them. There can be no real, deep possession of that great truth of the Gospel which we profess to be the foundation of our personal lives, unless we have felt the impulse to spread the name and to declare the sweetness of the Lord. The very same impulse that makes the loving heart carve the beloved name on the smooth rind of the tree makes it sweet to one who is in real touch and living fellowship with Jesus Christ to speak about Him. O brother! there is a very sharp test for us. I know that there are hundreds of professing Christians-decent, respectable sort of people, with a tepid, average amount of Christian faith and principle in them-who never felt that overmastering desire, ‘I mustlet this thing out through my lips.’ Why? Why do they not feel it? Because their own possession of Christ is so superficial and partial. Jeremiah’s experience will be repeated where there is vigorous Christian life: ‘Thy word shut up in my bones was like a fire’-that burned itself through all the mass that was laid upon it, and ate its way victoriously into the light-’and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.’ Christian men and women, do you know anything of that o’er-mastering impulse? If you do not, look to the depth and reality of your Christian profession.

Again, this witnessing is the condition of all strong life. If you keep nipping the buds off a plant you will kill it. If you never say a word to a human soul about your Christianity, your Christianity will tend to evaporate. Action confirms and strengthens convictions; speech deepens conviction; and although it is possible for any one- and some of us

Page 77: Acts 23 commentary

ministers are in great danger of making the possibility a reality-to talk away his religion, for one of us who loses it by speaking too much about it, there are twenty that damage it by speaking too little. Shut it up, and it will be like some wild creature put into a cellar, fast locked and unventilated; when you open the door it will be dead. Shut it up, as so many of our average Christian professors and members of our congregations and churches do, and when you come to take it out, it will be like some volatile perfume that has been put into a vial and locked away in a drawer and forgotten; there will be nothing left but an empty bottle, and a rotten cork. Speak your faith if you would have your faith strengthened. Muzzle it, and you go a long way to kill it. You are witnesses, and you cannot blink the obligation nor shirk the duties without damaging that in yourselves to which you are to witness.

Further, this task of witnessing for Christ can be done by all kinds of life. I do not need to dwell upon the distinction between the two great methods which open themselves out before every one of us. They do so; for direct work in speaking the name of Jesus Christ is possible for every Christian, whoever he or she is, however weak, ignorant, uninfluential, with howsoever narrow a circle. There is always somebody that God means to be the audience of His servant whenever that servant speaks of Christ. Do you not know that there are people in this world, as wives, children, parents, friends of different sorts, who would listen to you more readily than they would listen to any one else speaking about Jesus Christ? Friend, have you utilised these relationships in the interests of that great Name, and in the highest interests of the persons that sustain them to you, and of yourselves who sustain these to them?

And then there is indirect work that we can all do in various ways, I do not mean only by giving money, though of course that is important, but I mean all the manifold ways in which Christian people can show their sympathy with, and their interest in, the various forms in which adventurous, chivalrous, enterprising Christian benevolence expresses itself. It was an old law in Israel that ‘as his part was that went down into the battle, so should his part be that tarried by the stuff.’ When victory was won and the spoil came to be shared, the men who had stopped behind and looked after the base of operations and kept open the communications received the same portion as the man that, in the front rank of the battle, had rushed upon the spears of the Amalekites. Why? Because from the same motive they had been co-operant to the same great end. The Master has taken up that very thought, and has applied it in relation to the indirect work of His people, when He says, ‘He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward.’ The motive is the same; therefore the essential character of the act is the same; therefore the recompense is identical. You can witness for Christ directly, if you can say-and you can all say if you like-’We have found the Messias,’ and you can witness for Christ by casting yourselves earnestly into sympathy with and, so far as possible, help to the work that your brethren are doing. Dear friends, I beseech you to remember that we are all of us, if we are His followers, bound in our humble measure and degree, and with a reverent apprehension of the gulf between us and Him, still to take up His words and say, ‘To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth.’

II. There is a second thought that I would suggest from these words, and that is that secular events are ordered with a view to this witnessing.

Take the case before us. Here are two independent and hostile powers; on the one hand the bigoted Jewish Sanhedrim, hating the Roman yoke; and on the other hand the haughty and cruel pressure of that yoke on a recalcitrant and reluctant people: and these two internecine enemies are working on their own lines, each very willing to thwart the

Page 78: Acts 23 commentary

other, Mechanicians talk of the ‘composition of forces,’ by which two pressures acting at right angles to each other on a given object, impart to it a diagonal motion. The Sanhedrim on the one side, representing Judaism, and the captain of the castle on the other, representing the Roman power, work into each other’s hands, although neither of them knows it; and work out the fulfilment of a purpose that is hidden from them both.

No doubt it would be a miserably inadequate account of things to say that the Roman Empire came into existence for the sake of propagating Christianity. No doubt it is always dangerous to account for any phenomenon by the ends which, to our apprehension, it serves. But at the same time the study of the purposes which a given thing, being in existence, serves, and the study of the forces which brought it into existence, ought to be combined, and when combined, they present a double reason for adoring that great Providence which ‘makes the wrath of men to praise’ it, and uses for moral and spiritual ends the creatures that exist, the events that emerge, and even the godless doings of godless men.

So here we have a standing example of the way in which, like silk-worms that are spinning threads for a web that they have no notion of, the deeds of men that think not so are yet grasped and twined together by Jesus Christ, the Lord of providence, so as to bring about the realisation of His great purposes. And that is always so, more or less clearly.

For instance, if we wish to understand our own lives, do not let us dwell upon the superficialities of joy or sorrow, gain or loss, but let us get down to the depth, and see that all these externals have two great purposes in view-first, that we may be made like our Lord, as the Scripture itself says, ‘That we may be partakers of His holiness,’ and then that we may bear our testimony to His grace and love. Oh, if we would only look at life from that point of view, we should be brought to a stand less often at what we choose to call the mysteries of providence! Not enjoyment, not sorrow, but our perfecting in godliness and of the increase of our power and opportunities to bear witness to Him, are the intention of all that befalls us.

I need not speak about how this same principle must be applied, by every man who believes in a divine providence, to the wider events of the world’s history, I need not dwell upon that, nor will your time allow me to do it, but one word I should like to say, and that is that surely the two facts that we, as Christians, possess, as we believe, the pure faith, and that we, as Englishmen, are members of a community whose influence is world-wide, do not come together for nothing, or only that some of you might make fortunes out of the East Indian and China trade, but in order that all we English Christians might feel that, our speaking as we do the language which is destined, as it would appear, to run round the whole world, and our having, as we have, the faith which we believe brings salvation to every man of every race and tongue who accepts it, and our having this responsible necessary contact with the heathen races, lay upon us English Christians obligations the pressure and solemnity of which we have yet failed to appreciate.

Paul was immortal till his work was done. ‘Be of good cheer, Paul; thou must bear witness at Rome.’ And so, for ourselves and for the Gospel that we profess, the same divine Providence which orders events so that His servants may have the opportunities of witnessing to it, will take care that it shall not perish-notwithstanding all the premature jubilation of anti-Christian literature and thought in this day-until it has done its work. We need have no fear for ourselves, for though our blind eyes often fail to see, and our bleeding hearts often fail to accept, the conviction that there are no unfinished lives for His servants, yet we may be sure that He will watch over each of His children till

Page 79: Acts 23 commentary

they have finished the work that He gives them to do. And we may be sure, in regard to His great Gospel, that nothing can sink the ship that carries Christ and His fortunes. ‘Be of good cheer . . . thou hast borne witness . . . thou must bear witness.’

III. Lastly, we have here another principle-namely that faithful witnessing is rewarded by further witnessing.

‘Thou hast . . . in Jerusalem,’ the little city perched upon its crag; ‘Thou must . . . in Rome,’ the great capital seated on its seven hills. The reward for work is more work. Jesus Christ did not say to the Apostle, though he was ‘wearied with that which came upon him daily, the care of all the churches,’ ‘Thou hast borne witness, and now come apart and rest’; but He said to him, ‘Thou hast filled the smaller sphere; for recompense I put thee into a larger.’

That is the law for life and everywhere, the tools to the hand that can use them. The man that can do a thing gets it to do in too large a measure, as he sometimes thinks; but he gets it, and it is all right that he should. ‘To him that hath shall be given.’ And it is the law for heaven. ‘Thou hast borne witness down on the little dark earth; come up higher and witness for Me here, amid the blaze.’

It is the law for this Christian work of ours. If you have shone faithfully in your ‘little corner,’ as the child’s hymn says, you will be taken out and set upon the lamp-stand, that you ‘may give light to all that are in the house.’ And it is the law for this great enterprise of Christian missions, as we all know. We are overwhelmed with our success. Doors are opening around us on every side. There is no limit to the work that English Churches can do, except their inclination to do it. But the opportunities open to us require a far deeper consecration and a far closer dwelling beside our Master than we have ever realised. We are half asleep yet; we do not know our resources in men, in money, in activity, in prayer.

Surely there can be no sadder sign of decadence and no surer precursor of extinction than to fall beneath the demands of our day; to have doors opening at which we are too lazy or selfish to go in; to be so sound asleep that we never hear the man of Macedonia when he stands by us and cries, ‘Come over and help us!’ We are members of a Church that God has appointed to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. We are citizens of a nation whose influence is ubiquitous and felt in every land. By both characters, God summons us to tasks which will tax all our resources worthily to do. We inherit a work from our fathers which God has shown that He owns by giving us these golden opportunities. He summons us: ‘Lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes. Come out of Jerusalem; come into Rome.’ Shall we respond? God give us grace to fill the sphere in which He has set us, till He lifts us to the wider one, where the faithfulness of the steward is exchanged for the authority of the ruler, and the toil of the servant for the joy of the Lord!

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 11-35, "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul.

Paul in the castle at Jerusalem

On two other occasions a special Divine encouragement was given to Paul similar to the one here (Act_18:9-10; Act_27:23-24). At other times he acted under the general promises which God makes to all His people; but in these instances, special difficulties made a special promise appropriate. Note—

Page 80: Acts 23 commentary

I. The difficulties and dangers which surrounded Paul.

1. The conspiracy which had been secretly formed against his life. Of this it may be remarked—

(1) That it was made sufficiently strong to render success morally certain. More than forty men who bound themselves over to destruction—to the wrath of God—if they did not succeed.

(2) It might be presumed that Lysias would readily grant a request which would relieve him of embarrassment.

(3) Had the request been granted, it would have been an easy matter to have carried their purpose into execution, for it is not probable that a strong guard would have been sent on an errand apparently so peaceful. In the vision Paul was assured of protection from this danger; and he was rescued in a most remarkable manner (Act_23:16-24).

2. The trials before the Roman governors of Syria. The character of Felix (chap. 24); a man corrupt in heart and life (Act_23:25); ready to be bribed (Act_23:26); disposed to do anything to gratify the Jews (Act_23:27); afforded little reason to hope for justice. The probability that Paul would be delivered up to the Jews, and life again endangered, was not less in the trial before Festus who (chap. 25) was equally disposed to conciliate the Jews (Act_23:9); which led Paul to appeal to Caesar, and secure what had been promised him in the vision. It is easy to see how, when brought before Felix and Festus, the promise that he should “bear witness at Rome” was necessary to sustain him.

3. The voyage to Rome. In the storm, and shipwreck, all human probability of reaching Rome would fail entirely. Amidst these scenes, Paul could not but fall back on this Divine assurance.

II. The assurance given is the vision, as an illustration of the arrangements which God has made to keep us from despondency.

1. There is need of such an arrangement. We are often surrounded with perils, and are disappointed in our plans. We see no egress from our difficulties; no way of escape from our danger. Obviously we need some arrangement that will inspire hope.

2. We are secretly conscious to ourselves that there is such an arrangement. The world, though full of disappointment and trouble, is not inactive or despairing. There is a conscious something—which inspirits the mariner, the warrior, the farmer, the merchant, the traveller, the Christian. What is this arrangement? How does it appear that it is of Divine origin, and marked by Divine benevolence? In reply to these questions I shall advert—

(1) To the records of the past. We have unconsciously before us, in our difficulties, the memory of the general success which crowns the conflicts of life. The arrangements of God show that the general tendency of things is favourable to effort and to virtue, and preserve the world from idleness and despair.

(2) To the general promises of the Bible. In reference to temporal matters, the promises in regard to success in this life (Isa_33:15-16; Psa_37:25; 1Ti_4:8; Psa_84:11; Php_4:19; Psa_23:1; Heb_13:5), and temporal good (Lev_19:25; Lev_26:4; Deu_7:13; Deu_16:15; Deu_28:4; Psa_67:6) are of a general character; but in reference to the future life they are absolute (Mat_4:7-8; Mar_

Page 81: Acts 23 commentary

16:16; Joh_6:37; Rev_22:17). That there are dangers and enemies in the way of our salvation, and that it requires a struggle is certain; but the promise of victory is positive.

(3) To what may be designated an internal confidence of success and safety. How much of hope there is in the young man, the mariner, the merchant, the farmer, etc. God has created the mind buoyant, elastic, hopeful. He leads men to think of recovery and success, rather than to anticipate disaster and defeat. He has thus said to every man, not in distinct vision, yet really, “Be of good cheer!” (A. Barnes, D. D.)

Good cheer from past and future service

From the midnight whisper of the Lord to Paul we may draw forth sweet encouragement. Paul was like the rest of us, made of flesh and blood, and therefore liable to be cast down: he had kept himself calm at first; but, still, the strong excitement of the day no doubt operated upon his mind, and when he was lying in prison all alone, thinking upon the perils which surrounded him, he needed good cheer, and he received it.

1. This consisted, first, in his Master’s presence: “The Lord stood by him.” If all else forsook him, Jesus was company enough; if all despised him, Jesus’ smile was patronage enough; if the good cause seemed in danger, in the presence of his Master victory was sure. “The Lord stood by him.” This shall be said of all who diligently serve God. Dear friend, if you are a worker of the Lord Jesus, depend upon it He will not desert you. Did you ever forsake a friend who was spending his strength for you? If you have done so, you ought to be ashamed of yourself; but I think I hear you say, indignantly, “No, I have always been faithful to my faithful friend.” Do not, therefore, suspect your Lord of treating you ungenerously, for He is faithful and true.

2. The next comfort for Paul was the reflection that the Lord’s standing by him proved that He knew where he was, and was aware of his condition. One is reminded of the Quaker who came to see John Bunyan in prison, and said to him, “Friend, the Lord sent me to thee, and I have been seeking thee in half the prisons in England.” “Nay, verily,” said John, “that cannot be; for if the Lord had sent thee to me, thou wouldst have come here at once, for He knows I have been here for years.” God has not a single jewel laid by and forgotten. “Thou God seest me” is a great consolation to one who delights himself in the Lord. The Lord stood by Paul despite doors and locks: he asked no warder’s leave to enter, nor did He stir bolt or bar; but there He was, She Companion of His humble servant. If we come into such a peculiar position that no friend knows our experience, none having been tempted as we are, yet the Lord Jesus can enter into our special trial and sympathise in our peculiar grief. Jesus can stand side by side with us, for He has been afflicted in all our afflictions. What is more, that part of our circumstances which we do not know ourselves, Jesus knows, and in these He stands by us; for Paul was not aware of the danger to which he was exposed, he did not know that certain Jews, to the number of forty, had banded together to kill him; but He who was his shield and his exceeding great reward had heard the cruel oath, and arranged to disappoint the bloodthirsty ones. Before Satan can draw the bow the Preserver of men will pus His beloved beyond the reach of the arrow. Before the weapon is forged in the furnace, and fashioned on the anvil, He knows how to provide us with armour of proof which shall turn the edge of She

Page 82: Acts 23 commentary

sword and break the point of the spear.

3. When the Lord Jesus came to Paul He gave him a third reason for courage. He said, “Be of good cheer, Paul: for thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem.” There was much comfort in this assurance that his work was accepted of his Master. We dare not look for much joy in anything that we have done, for our poor works are all imperfect; and yet the Lord sometimes gives His servants honey in the carcasses of lions which they have themselves slain by pouring into their souls a sweet sense of having walked in integrity before Him. Herein is good cheer; for if the Lord accepts, it is a small matter if men condemn. The Lord says to Paul, “Thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem.” The apostle had done so, but he was too humble to console himself with that fact till his Lord gave him leave to do so by acknowledging the brave deed. It may be that your conscience makes you more familiar with your faults than with your services, and you rather sigh than sing as you look back upon your Christian career; yet your loving Lord rovers all your failures, and commends you for what His grace has enabled you to do in the way of witness bearing. It must be sweet to you to hear Him say, “I know thy works; for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.”

4. A fourth comfort remained for Paul in the words, “As thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” The Lord would have us take comfort from the prospect of future service and usefulness. We are not done with yet, and thrown aside as vessels in which the Lord hath no more. This is the chief point of comfort in our Lord’s word to the apostle. Be of good courage, there is more for you to do, Paul; they cannot kill you at Jerusalem, for you must bear witness also at Rome. Wycliffe could not die though the malicious monks favoured him with their best wishes in that direction. “Nay,” said the reformer, “I shall not die, but live, and declare all the evil deeds of the friars.” The sight of rogues to be exposed roused his flickering life, and revived its flame. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Paul’s vision

1. Christ is constantly with His followers, and He often manifests Himself at the very moment when the future looks darkest to human eyes.

2. Christ manifests Himself with a cheering message: “Be of good cheer.” The poor persecuted disciple, whom apparently only his enemy’s mutual jealousies preserve from instant death, is made to feel that the power of Omnipotence is behind him.

3. Christ manifests Himself with words of cheer for His followers, but He does not assure them that their troubles are yet over. Paul has testified in Jerusalem, and must go on to bear witness at Rome.

4. Christ gives no furloughs until the conflict is over. All Paul could look forward to in this world was a mere change of battlefields.

5. Christ gives no furloughs here, but gives the assurance of a final honourable discharge to those who fight the battle out. Paul testified for Christ in Jerusalem and Rome; Christ testifies for Paul in the New Jerusalem of God. (S. S. Times.)

The vision in the castle of Antonia

Page 83: Acts 23 commentary

Learn that—

I. Faithful service in the past is rewarded by the comfort of Christ’s manifest and marked encouragement. Rewards of Christian service are not all kept for heaven. We may not have the crown here, but we may feel the grasp of the hand that shall presently put it on (Isa_41:13). We may not, while on earth, see the Saviour “as He is”; we may nevertheless feel His presence.

1. The Lord’s way of comforting His servants is by His presence. When a little child is in great sorrow, only a mother’s comfort suffices. Servant’s, and sister’s, and even a father’s comfort are not enough. So we want the mighty volume of His sympathy who alone is sufficiently “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.”

2. The Lord’s words of comfort are words of direct encouragement. How characteristic of the Saviour this language is. “Fear not,” and “Be of good cheer,” are words constantly on His lips. To Abraham, to Moses, through Isaiah, God whispers, “Fear not.” To Mary, Joseph, the women, Zacharias, Jairus, the “little flock,” the daughter of Sion, John in Patmos, etc., Christ and His angels say, “Fear not.” Christ spake it to the man sick of the palsy, to the frightened disciples in the storm, and to the suffering Church which in the world must have tribulation.

II. The faithful service of the past is a qualification and commission for the difficult duties of the future. “As thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must,” etc.

1. The past had qualified Paul for the future. Jerusalem, and all that went before, would help him to preach at Rome. The trials here would make him strong before Nero, and his hearers would look on this well-tried servant, and become stronger in his past fidelity and deliverances.

2. His past was also his commission for the future. This new service was the reward of the old fidelity; this new battle the honour conferred for the past victory. Marlborough’s minor victories in 1702 make way for Blenheim in 1704 and Blenheim in turn makes way, later on, for Ramillies. So Talavera, and Salamanca, and Vittoria are but Wellington’s preface and commission for Waterloo. Nelson fought St. Vincent and the Nile only to go on to Trafalgar. So our Lord is wont to say to His servants: “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many”; “Thou hast been faithful at Jerusalem, reward is to testify at Rome.” They who fight their smaller battles well, will find larger field s and nobler victories.

III. The words which Christ speaks as to the faithful past, guide and strengthen His servants in trials get to come. Christ’s words—

1. Guided Paul as to his after appeal to Rome. When Festus asked, “Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem” (Act_25:9), Paul replied, “I appeal unto Caesar.” Some good men have accused Paul of weakness and error here. No! Paul felt clear about his duty, and had no regret when Agrippa said, “This man might have been set at liberty if he had not appealed unto Caesar.” The Saviour Himself had said, “Thou shalt bear witness at Rome.”

2. Gave Paul patience during a long and tedious course of waiting. The apostle’s heart had long been set on visiting Rome. His enemies were playing into his hands and were undertaking the charges of his journey. But for two whole years Festus kept Paul bound. But the Saviour had promised Rome, and that was enough. Thus patience was born of former faithfulness.

3. Afforded assurance to Paul amidst the terrific dangers of the journey.

Page 84: Acts 23 commentary

4. Was strength to Paul in Rome. (F. G. Marchant.)

Paul’s final departure from Jerusalem

Was marked by—

I. A visit from Christ (verse 11). This advent was—

1. Opportune. We may well suppose that Paul’s sensitive nature would be subject to many painful memories, gloomy thoughts, boding anxieties, and perhaps sceptical thoughts.

2. Cheering: What a contrast to the words of falsehood, cursing, blasphemy, which during the previous days had been addressed to him! Christ’s words were words of—

(1) Commendation. Had Paul been allowed the mental agony of questioning whether he had done the right thing in Jerusalem? If so, here is a scattering of the dark thought: “Thou hast testified of Me”—well done.

(2) Information. Paul had long been intensely anxious to visit Rome (Act_19:21; Rom_1:10; Rom_15:23-24). Perhaps he had given up this long-cherished purpose, and had wept bitter tears of disappointment on the wreck of the loved hope. Christ’s words now assured him.

3. Suggestive that great trials in duty—

(1) Are no evidence of unfaithfulness.

(2) Are all known to Christ.

(3) Do not release us from the obligation to persevere.

II. A conspiracy of enemies (verses 12-16). This conspiracy was—

1. Malignant. The sufferings to which he was already subject did not satisfy them. Like wild beasts they thirsted for his blood.

2. Determined. “They bound themselves under a curse.”

3. Strong. “More than forty.”

4. Cunning (verse 14). Being in the charge of the Roman officer, he could only be got at through the Sanhedrin. The fact that these wretches could make such a request demonstrates the immorality that prevailed amongst the rulers.

III. An interposition of providence. In the verses that follow (16-35) we find Divine Providence—

1. Thwarting the evil. In the method here recorded we find three things which generally characterise the procedure of Providence.

(1) Simplicity. The agency employed was “Paul’s sister’s son.” This is all we know of the family of Paul. Here is a young man, probably uninfluential and obscure, who does the work. It has ever been Heaven’s plan to employ insignificant means for the accomplishment of great ends.

(2) Unexpectedness. Little did the conspirators expect that their plan would be defeated by an obscure youth; little did Paul expect that deliverance would come for him from such a quarter. Means often most unlikely are employed to

Page 85: Acts 23 commentary

accomplish important results.

(3) Naturalness. It was natural

(a) for Paul’s nephew, having heard of the malignant plot, to seek access to his uncle, and to warn him of it.

(b) For his uncle to despatch him to the chief captain.

(c) For the chief captain, as a man of honour, to act as he did.

2. Delivering the good.

(1) Paul secured a safe journey to Caesarea. God’s resources are greater than the devil’s. There were forty murderers in quest of Paul’s life, but God raised nearly five hundred brave soldiers to protect him. More are they that are for us than they that are against us.

(2) Paul secured a good introduction to the Roman judge, in the letter that was written by Lysias to Felix. So far Paul is safe, and on his way to the imperial city he long desired to visit. Truly, “many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all.” (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The call from heaven, “Be of good cheer,” is for all Christ’s faithful servants

1. To comfort them at the unrighteous judgment of the world.

2. To indemnify them for the reproach of their ministry.

3. To allay their doubts as to their procedure.

4. To strengthen them for future contests. (K. Gerok.)

And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse.—

The plot of the Jews

Note that hatred—

I. Rises early, but love rises earlier. When morning came the Jews sought Paul’s life, but the Lord had stood by Paul long before the morning dawned.

II. Always binds men with a curse, and the curse is on the haters, not on the hated. Curses, like chickens, come home to roost.

III. Demands satisfaction, though bodily wants go unsatisfied. But no soul can live long on hatred’s poison.

IV. Demands satisfaction, but it does not secure it, when love appoints otherwise. These plotting Jews died of thirst and starvation if they were faithful to their murderous vow.

V. Is injudicious. It confides its murderous designs to forty men, half of whom are probably constitutionally unable to keep a secret.

VI. Is prompt and energetic. It were well if more of Christ’s followers had a little of the fiery zeal for Christ that His enemies display against Christ.

Page 86: Acts 23 commentary

VII. Is lying, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, mean. Under the pretence of sending for Paul to question, it makes ready to stab him. (K. Gerok.)

The assassins

One fancies they were chiefly young men, such as are usually foremost in daring and reckless deeds of violence. Probably many of them were students in the rabbinical schools, just as many Nihilists now in Russia are students of the universities. Paul could hardly wonder that some of them should be wrought up to this desperate and cruel undertaking, when he remembered how, a little over twenty years before, he himself had persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem, dragging men and women to prison, and, like some fierce monster, “breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” (J. A. Broadus, D. D.)

Confederacy in evil

In union there is strength—strength for evil as well as strength for good; and many a man will consent to wrong-doing in a ring, or in a corporation, or in a society of which he is a member, when he would never think of consenting to that same evil if he were all by himself in action. We have no need to go back to the days of the apostles for illustrations of this evil spirit. Instances of it abound in the European Nihilists, and the international dynamiters, and the gangs of robbers for both political and material plunder, in our American cities and in our American borders; all of whom exhibit everything that was evil in the course of the Jewish zealots, without the mitigating feature of an honest conviction, or of an accord with the prevalent spirit of the age. There is a timeliness in this Bible illustration of this accursed spirit of secret conspiring in an unholy brotherhood against law and religion, and against life and decency. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

The conspiracy against Paul

In the story of the sack of Troy, Virgil has told us of the coming of Venus to AEneas to persuade him to abandon the useless defence of the city. She dispels the cloud which dims his vision, and enables him to see invisible deities who assist the Greeks in their work of conquest and destruction. AEneas now learns that he has done battle, not against “flesh and blood,” but against spiritual forces mightier than all the powers of earth. The classic story clearly pictures the natural blindness of men to the spiritual forces which overrule their lives, and the special favour bestowed upon him whose eyes are opened to see events in the light of the unseen world. And this is the great lesson here.

I. God is ever present and active in human affairs. Not always manifestly. The young man who stood by the side of Elisha at Dothan saw nothing at first to persuade him that God was present. But when his eyes were opened he saw that “the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire.” The forty conspirators here sought no help and feared no hindrance from the hand of God, although their design was made in the name of their religion. But when the fruits of religion are hatred and wrath and thirst for blood, God is not in it. The help to which these men turned was their own cunning. “If we can manage Claudius Lysias,” they said, “nothing shall save Paul.” And yet God was present and

Page 87: Acts 23 commentary

active, giving them freedom to make their plans, and some degree of freedom in executing them, but keeping results in His own hand. So, let us believe, He always works.

II. God’s agents in these events were blind to this transcendent fact.

1. Claudius Lysias was unconscious of anything of the sort. He was only a shrewd man, bent upon extricating himself from perplexing difficulties. Alarmed by the, to him unaccountable, violence of the Jews, and disturbed by his non-recognition of a Roman citizen, he fixed upon the plan of sending Paul to Caesarea, as a safe way of relieving himself from further responsibility.

2. More culpable was the blindness of the chief priests and elders and conspirators. How came it that they, belonging to the nation chosen of God to receive the special revelation of His will, were so blind to His purposes? The answer is: Their moral blindness was a result of past sins. We can see God in His plans and wishes only along the line of a sincere and holy purpose.

III. The apostle was the one man of open vision. Nothing in his outward condition had power to obliterate or to disturb his sense of God’s nearness, and of His infinite grace. The Roman barracks had been to him a Bethel.

1. To find the reason for this vision we must go back to the very beginning of Paul’s Christian life. In the saying, “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,” is to be found the reason why at critical moments in his life the Lord “stood by him” to reassure his heart. There is a wonder working instrument of science, by the aid of which one may hear the voice of a friend who is in the heart of a distant city. So upon devoutly attentive ears there may fall, distinct and musical, the still small voice of God, which not all earth’s many voices can drown.

2. The apostle’s assurance of God’s presence led him not to a passive reliance, but to cooperation. As he saw the power of the Roman soldiery enlisted in his behalf, he gladly availed himself of their protecting care. When the young man came into his presence to reveal the plot of the conspirators, be immediately availed himself of this information, and laid claim to the help of the chief captain. (W. G. Sperry.)

Divine assistance

1. God strengthens His servants internally by the promise of His grace (verse 14).

2. He reveals the designs of their enemies (verse 16).

3. He stirs up for them active friends (Paul’s nephew) and powerful protectors (Lysias).

4. He brings them uninjured through the midst of their enemies (verse 23).

5. He gives them an honourable testimony on the way (verse 25, etc.). (K. Gerok.)

Divine protection

I. Required against the crafty designs of enemies who—

1. Unite against the righteous (verses 12, 13).

2. Disguise themselves under a pious appearance (verses 14, 15).

Page 88: Acts 23 commentary

II. Experienced. God—

1. Brings the wickedness to light (verse 16).

2. Directs the hearts of men for the good of the righteous (verses 17-22). (Lisco.)

And they came to the chief priests and elders and said … signify to the chief captain.—

Evil-doing by proxy

Many persons who would not themselves commit a crime can be induced to have a share in the results of crime. There are railroad stockholders who would not themselves attempt bribery, who will accept a dividend on stock which has been made profitable through a bribery of the Legislature for its advantage. There are bank stockholders who will share without a protest the proceeds of a guilty compromise made by the bank officials with bank robbers for the recovery of stolen funds. And there are Christian voters who will vote for a corrupt man in city councils or in the Legislature, because his corrupt ways increase the value of real estate, or improve the health and comfort of the community. Those Jewish conspirators knew something about human nature when they went to the chief priests and elders, and said, All we ask of you is to get Paul into the open street; then we’ll see to it that he never troubles you again. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

The Plot to Kill Paul

12 The next morning some Jews formed a

conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath

not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul.

BAR�ES, "Certain of the Jews - Some of the Jews. They were more than forty in number, Act_23:13.

Banded together -Made an agreement or compact. They conspired to kill him.

And bound themselves under a curse - See the margin. The Greek is, “they anathematized themselves”; that is, they bound themselves by a solemn oath. They invoked a curse on themselves, or devoted themselves to destruction, if they did not do it. Lightfoot remarks, however, that they could be absolved from this vow by the rabbis if they were unable to execute it. Under various pretences they could easily be freed from such oaths, and it was common to take them; and if there was any difficulty in fulfilling

Page 89: Acts 23 commentary

them, they could easily apply to their religious teachers and be absolved.

That they would neither eat nor drink - That is, that they would do it as soon as possible. This was a common form of an oath, or curse, among the Jews. Sometimes they only vowed abstinence from particular things, as from meat, or wine. But in this case, to make the oath more certain and binding, they vowed abstinence from all kinds of food and drink until they had killed him. Who these were - whether they were Sadducees or not - is not mentioned by the sacred writer. It is evident, however, that the minds of the Jews were greatly inflamed against Paul; and as they saw him in the custody of the Roman tribune, and as there was no prospect that he would punish him, they resolved to take the matter into their own hands. Michaelis conjectures that they were of the number of the Sicarii, or cutthroats, with which Judea then abounded. See the notes on Act_21:38. It is needless to remark that this was a most wicked oath. It was a deliberate purpose to commit murder; and it shows the desperate state of morals among the Jews at that time, and the infuriated malice of the people against the apostle, that such an oath could have been taken.

CLARKE,"That they would neither eat nor drink, etc. - These forty Jews were no doubt of the class of the sicarii mentioned before, (similar to those afterwards called assassins), a class of fierce zealots, who took justice into their own hand; and who thought they had a right to despatch all those who, according to their views, were not orthodox in their religious principles. If these were, in their bad way, conscientious men, must they not all perish through hunger, as God put it out of their power to accomplish their vow? No: for the doctrine of sacerdotal absolution was held among the Jews as among the Papists: hence it is said, in Hieros. Avodah Zarah, fol. 40: “He that hath made a vow not to eat any thing, wo to him, if he eat; and wo to him, if he do not eat. If he eat, he sinneth against his vow; and if he do not eat, he sinneth against his life.” What must such a man do in this case? Let him go to the wise men, and they will loose him from his vow, as it is written, Pro_12:18 : “The tongue of the wise is health.” When vows were so easily dispensed with, they might be readily multiplied. See Lightfoot.

GILL, "And when it was day,.... As soon as it was light, very early in the morning:

certain of the Jews banded together; these very likely were of the sect of the Sadducees, who had been exceedingly irritated and provoked by what Paul had said the day before in the council; these therefore gathered together, entered into a conspiracy to take away Paul's life, and trailed in it, as one man:

and bound themselves under a curse; or "anathematized themselves"; the Hebrew

word חרם, which answers to "anathema", is sometimes used for an oath, חרם�היא�שבועה, "Cherem" or "anathema" is "an oath" (a), a vow made to be punished with an anathema if not kept; so these men swore to it, bound themselves with an oath, or wished they might be an anathema, accursed of God, and cut off from his people; they imprecated the most dreadful evils upon themselves:

saying, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul: it was a

common form of a vow or oath with the Jews (b), שלא�אוכל, "that I will not eat"; sometimes they only vowed abstinence from particular things, and then others were lawful; as for instance, if one vowed that he would not eat boiled meat, he might eat

Page 90: Acts 23 commentary

roast, or that he would not eat flesh, he might eat broth, or that he would abstain from milk, then he might drink whey, (c); but this oath and vow here were, that they would neither eat nor drink anything, till they had destroyed Paul: these were a set of zealots, who in imitation of Phinehas, and pretending the glory of God, took upon them to take away the lives of men, without any, judicial procedure, or the authority of the civil magistrate; of whom; see Gill on Mat_10:4 it may be asked, what became of this vow? or how did they get clear of it, since they did not accomplish the fact? to which it may be answered, that it was a pretty easy thing to be freed from oaths and vows, among the Jews, whose doctors had a power to absolve men from them; and in such cases as this, and such a vow as this, might be loosed upon more accounts than one, as on account of keeping another law, the observing the sabbath and other festivals, when men were obliged to eat and drink: and thus it is said (d),

"if a man swears that he will not drink wine, or that he will not eat flesh, for so many days, then they say to him, if thou hadst known at the time of the oath, that the sabbath or a feast day were within these days, in which thou art obliged to eat flesh and drink wine, as it is said, Isa_58:13 "and call the sabbath a delight"; wouldst thou have swore at all? if he says no, they loose his oath:''

and likewise it might be loosed on account of life, which a man is bound to preserve: for so they likewise say (e),

"if a man vows that he will not eat anything, woe be to him if he eats, and woe be to him if he does not eat; if he eats he breaks his vow, if he does not eat he sins against his own

soul, or life; what must he do? let him go to the wise men, ויתירו�לו�את�נדרו, "and they will loose his vow for him", as it is written, Pro_12:18 but the tongue of the wise is health;''

and no doubt but these men very easily got their vow loosed, since it was made on such a design.

HE�RY, "We have here the story of a plot against the life of Paul; how it was laid, how it was discovered, and how it was defeated.

I. How this plot was laid. They found they could gain nothing by popular tumult, or legal process, and therefore have a recourse to the barbarous method of assassination; they will come upon him suddenly, and stab him, if they can but get him within their reach. So restless is their malice against this good man that, when one design fails, they will turn another stone. Now observe here,

1. Who they were that formed this conspiracy. They were certain Jews that had the utmost degree of indignation against him because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, Act_23:12. And they were more than forty that were in the design, Act_23:13. Lord, how are they increased that trouble me!

2. When the conspiracy was formed: When it was day. Satan had filled their hearts in the night to purpose it, and, as soon as it was day, they got together to prosecute it; answering to the account which the prophet gives of some who work evil upon their beds, and when the morning is light they practise it, and are laid under a woe for it, Mic_2:1. In the night Christ appeared to Paul to protect him, and, when it was day, here were forty men appearing against him to destroy him; they were not up so soon but Christ was up before them God shall help her, and that right early, Psa_46:5.

Page 91: Acts 23 commentary

3. What the conspiracy was. These men banded together in a league, perhaps they called it a holy league; they engaged to stand by one another, and every one, to his power, to be aiding and assisting to murder Paul. It was strange that so many could so soon be got together, and that in Jerusalem too, who were so perfectly lost to all sense of humanity and honour as to engage in so bloody a design. Well might the prophet's complaint be renewed concerning Jerusalem (Isa_1:21): Righteousness has lodged in it, but now murderers. What a monstrous idea must these men have formed of Paul, before they could be capable of forming such a monstrous design against him; they must be made to believe that he was the worst of men, an enemy to God and religion, and the curse and plague of his generation; when really his character was the reverse of all this! What laws of truth and justice so sacred, so strong which malice and bigotry will not break through!

4. How firm they made it, as they thought, that none of them might fly off, upon conscience of the horror of the fact, at second thoughts: They bound themselves under an anathema, imprecating the heaviest curses upon themselves, their souls, bodies, and families, if they did not kill Paul, and so quickly that they would not eat nor drink till they had done it. What a complication of wickedness is here! To design to kill an innocent man, a good man, a useful man, a man that had done them no harm, but was willing to do them all the good he could, was going in the way of Cain, and proved them to be of their father the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning; yet, as if this had been a small matter, (1.) They bound themselves to it. To incline to do evil, and intend to do it, is bad; but to engage to do it is much worse. This is entering into covenant with the devil; it is swearing allegiance to the prince of darkness; it is leaving no room for repentance; nay, it is bidding defiance to it. (2.) They bound one another to it, and did all they could, not only to secure the damnation of their own souls, but of theirs whom they drew into the association. (3.) They showed a great contempt of the providence of God, and a presumption upon it, in that they bound themselves to do such a thing within so short a time as they could continue fasting, without any proviso or reserve for the disposal of an overruling Providence. When we say, Tomorrow we will do this or that, be it ever so lawful and good, forasmuch as we know not what shall be on the morrow, we must add, If the Lord will. But with what face could they insert a proviso for the permission of God's providence when they knew that what they were about was directly against the prohibitions of God's work? (4.) They showed a great contempt of their own souls and bodies; of their own souls in imprecating a curse upon them if they did not proceed in this desperate enterprise (what a woeful dilemma did they throw themselves upon! God certainly meets them with his curse if they do go on in it, and they desire he would if they do not! - nd of their own bodies too (for wilful sinners are the destroyers of both) in tying themselves out from the necessary supports of life till they had accomplished a thing which they could never lawfully do, and perhaps not possibly do. Such language of hell those speak that wish God to damn them, and the devil to take them, if they do not do so and so. As they love cursing, so shall it come unto them. Some think the meaning of this curse was, they would either kill Paul, as an Achan, an accursed thing, a troubler of the camp; or, if they did not do it, they would make themselves accursed before God in his stead. (5.) They showed a most eager desire to compass this matter, and an impatience till was done: not only like David's enemies, that were mad against him, and sworn against him (Psa_102:8), but like the servants of Job against his enemy: O that we had of this flesh! we cannot be satisfied, Job_31:31. Persecutors are said to eat up God's people as they eat bread; it is as much a gratification to them as meat to one that is hungry, Psa_14:4.

JAMISO�, "bound themselves under a curse ... that they would neither eat

Page 92: Acts 23 commentary

... fill they had killed Paul— Compare 2Sa_3:35; 1Sa_14:24.

CALVI�, "12.And when it was day. By this circumstance, Luke showeth how

necessary it was for Paul to gather new and fresh strength of faith, that he might not

quake in most great and sudden danger. For being told of this so desperate madness

of his enemies, he could not otherwise think but that he should lose his life. This vow

whereof Luke speaketh was a kind of curse. The cause of the vow was, that it might

not be lawful for them to change their purpose, nor to call back that which they had

promised. There is always, indeed, in an oath a secret curse, − (546) if any man

deceive or forswear, but sometimes to the end men may the more bind themselves,

they use certain forms of cursing; − (547) and they make themselves subject to cruel

torments, to the end they may be the more afraid. This history doth teach that zeal is

so bloody in hypocrites, that they weigh not what is lawful for them, but they run

carelessly whithersoever their lust doth carry them. Admit we grant that Paul was a

wicked man, and worthy to die, yet who had given private men leave to put him to

death? �ow, if any man had asked why they did so hate Paul, they would quickly

have answered, because he was a revolt [apostate] and schismatic; but it was but a

foolish opinion, and an opinion conceived of an uncertain report concerning this

matter which had rashly possessed their minds. −

The same blindness and blockishness doth at this day prick forward the Papists, so

that they think nothing unlawful for them in destroying us. Hypocrisy doth so blind

their ears, that as men freed from the laws of God and merit they are carried by

their zeal sometimes unto treachery, sometimes unto guile, sometimes unto

intolerable cruelty, and, finally, to attempt whatsoever they will. Moreover, we see

in this history how great the rashness of the wicked is. They bind themselves with a

curse that they will eat no meat till they have slain Paul, as if his life were in their

hands. Therefore, these brain-sick men take to themselves that which the Lord doth

so often in Scripture say is his, to wit, −

“To have the life and death of those men whom he hath created in his hand,”

( Deuteronomy 32:39). −

Moreover, there be not only two or three who are partners in this madness, but

more than forty. Whence we do also gather how willing and bent men are to do

mischief, seeing they run together thus on heaps. − (548) −

Furthermore, seeing Satan doth drive them headlong into their own destruction,

how shameful is then our sluggishness, when as we scarce move one finger in

maintaining the glory of God? We must use moderation, that we attempt nothing

without the commandment of God; but when God calleth us expressly, our loitering

is without excuse. −

“ Tacita execratio,” a tacit execration.

“ Anathematis,” of anathema.

Page 93: Acts 23 commentary

“ Turmatim,” in crowds.

COFFMA�, "The Lord had called the temple a den of thieves and robbers; and

here is the most amazing proof of it.

More than forty ... How many more? Well, to the forty, one must add the chief

priests and the elders of the people, the entire dominant factor which controlled the

temple itself. How evil this once glorious institution had become! Once the moral

nature of man is decapitated at the highest level, the consequent descent to lower

and lower levels of shame, carnality and depravity is inevitable and accelerated.

Having rejected the Christ only some thirty years before, the temple partisans at the

time here recorded shamelessly exhibited the morality of a group of vicious outlaws.

Incidentally, it should be observed that the whole temple party had already

conceded to themselves that any fair hearing of Paul's case before Lysias would

result in his acquittal. This conspiracy, therefore, is their own announcement of

Paul's innocence.

Bound ... under a curse ... Bruce gave the form of such an oath thus, "So may God

do to us, and more also, if we eat or drink until we have killed Paul."[15] The spirit

of Jezebel rested upon the temple fathers, for she made a similar vow: "So let the

gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by

tomorrow about this time" (1 Kings 19:2).

Conspiracy ... This word occurs "only here in the �ew Testament."[16] Amazingly,

they "knew that many of the chief priests and elders would favor their murderous

designs,"[17] indicating that the satanic behavior in the temple was known to many

and recognized as typical of their operations. The plot to kill Paul was skillfully

designed and would in all probability have succeeded if it had not been

providentially frustrated. It was simple enough. The high priest would request of

Lysias another hearing, promising, of course, that no riot would ensue next time,

and pretending of course that they would fully resolve the matter at another

hearing; and there was no reason to suppose Lysias might not have honored such a

request. In the meanwhile, forty desperate men, armed with daggers, would waylay

the escort as they started for the meeting place and murder Paul before he ever

appeared before the Sanhedrin, which of course would have professed surprise and

avoided all implications involving themselves. Beautiful! But God did not allow it.

[15] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 457.

[16] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 213.

[17] Matthew Henry, Henry-Scott Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker

Book House, 1960), p. 523.

ELLICOTT, "(12) Certain of the Jews banded together . . .—The casuistry of the

more fanatic Jews led them to the conclusion that a blasphemer or apostate was an

Page 94: Acts 23 commentary

outlaw, and that, in the absence of any judicial condemnation, private persons might

take on themselves the execution of the divine sentence. So, they may have argued,

Mattathias, the founder of the Maccabean dynasty, had slain the apostate Jew who

offered sacrifice at the altar at Modin (1 Maccabees 2:24); so ten Zealots of

Jerusalem had conspired to assassinate Herod the Great because he had built an

amphi-theatre and held gladiatorial games in the Holy City (Jos. Ant. xii. 6, § 2; xv.

8, § 3). It is melancholy but instructive to remember how often the casuistry of

Christian theologians has run in the same groove. In this respect the Jesuit teaching,

absolving subjects from their allegiance to heretic rulers, and the practical issue of

that teaching in the history of the Gunpowder Plot, and of the murders perpetrated

by Clement and Ravaillac, present only too painful a parallel. Those who now thus

acted were probably of the number of the Zealots, or Sicarii.

Under a curse.—Literally, they placed themselves under an anathema. This was the

Jewish kherem, and the person or thing on which it fell was regarded as devoted to

the wrath of God. (Comp. �otes on 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9.) So also in

the Old Testament we find that Jericho and all that it contained was a kherem, or

accursed thing, devoted to destruction (Joshua 7:1).

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:12-13. And when it was day, certain of the Jews — Being

exceedingly provoked that Paul had been thus rescued from the council; bound

themselves under a curse — Such execrable vows were not uncommon among the

Jews. And if they were prevented from accomplishing what they had vowed, it was

an easy matter, as Dr. Lightfoot has shown from the Talmud, to obtain absolution

from their rabbis; saying — Vowing; That they would neither eat nor drink till they

had killed Paul — Imprecating the heaviest curses upon themselves, their souls,

bodies, and families, if they did not kill him, and so speedily, that they would not eat

or drink till they had done it. What a complication of wickedness is here! To design

to kill an innocent man, a good and useful man, a man that had done them no harm,

but was willing and desirous to do them all the good he could, was going in the way

of Cain most manifestly, and showed them to be of their father the devil, who was a

murderer from the beginning. Yet, as if this had been a small matter, 1st, They

bound themselves to it in a most awful manner. To incline to do evil is bad, and to

intend and purpose to do it is worse; but to engage to do it, especially in such a

manner as these Jews here did, is worst of all. It is entering into covenant with the

devil; it is swearing allegiance to the prince of darkness; it is bidding defiance to a

holy and just God. 2d, They bound one another to it, even more than forty of them,

and thus did all they could, not only to secure the damnation of their own souls, but

of the souls of all them whom they drew into the association. 3d, They showed a

great contempt of the providence of God, and a presumption upon it, in that they

bound themselves to do a thing, and that so dreadfully wicked, within so short a

space of time as they could continue fasting; without any proviso or reserve for the

disposal of an overruling providence; without saying, or thinking, “If the Lord

will.” But, indeed, with what face could they insert a proviso for the permission of

God’s providence, when they knew what they were about to do was directly

contrary to the prohibitions of his word? 4th, They showed a great contempt of their

own souls and bodies; of their souls, in imprecating a curse upon them if they did

Page 95: Acts 23 commentary

not proceed in this desperate enterprise; thus throwing themselves upon a most

woful dilemma! for God certainly meets them with his curse if they proceed in their

design, and they desire he would if they do not! and of their own bodies too, (for

wilful sinners are the destroyers of both,) in tying themselves up from the necessary

supports of life till they had accomplished a thing, which they could never lawfully,

and perhaps not possibly, accomplish.

CO�STABLE 12-15, "Paul's adversaries (cf. Acts 21:27-29) evidently agreed

together not to taste food or drink again until Paul was dead (cf. John 16:2). Their

plan was to have the chief priests and elders of Israel ask the Roman commander to

return Paul to the Sanhedrin for further questioning. Assassins planned to kill him

somewhere on the streets between the Fortress of Antonia and the hall of the

Sanhedrin. These buildings were not far apart. They surely realized that Paul's

Roman guards might kill some of their number in the process.

"The oath was not so suicidal as it seems, since provision was made by the rabbis for

releasing participants from the consequences of failure to carry out their purpose if

external circumstances had made it impossible." [�ote: �eil, p. 230.]

PETT, "Indeed these Jews were so determined to kill Paul that they bound

themselves under a curse to do so. They swore that they would neither eat nor drink

until they had achieved their purpose. We are not told whether the Asian Jews were

involved, but it must seem possible. It was not, however, only them. These men

clearly expected to achieve their aim quickly and if they failed would abandon the

curse on the grounds of impossibility of accomplishment, a useful Rabbinic let-out.

But the curse was real nevertheless. In their own eyes they knew that they would

lose face before God and men by its failure.

PETT, "The Jews Plan An Ambush With The Purpose of Slaying Paul, Which Is

Thwarted by Paul’s �ephew and the Divine Hand (23:12-24).

We discover here how the hatred that has followed Paul around at the hands of the

Jews is continuing to grow. It had begun with the Jews of Asia, and continued with

the stirred up crowd. Although the last, left to itself, would soon die down. But there

was a core of fanatical Jews in whom the hatred continued and grew. With them it

would not die down, and it is of them that we now learn. And gradually that hatred

will grow through the controversies of the Sanhedrin, while the High Priest

probably never forgave him for publicly calling him a whited wall and reminding

him of the judgment he faced. And soon the majority of the Sanhedrin will become

determined to seek his death. He has become a focal point and they are beginning to

believe their own propaganda. And they do so unceasingly until he disappears in a

ship towards Rome. Jerusalem has truly rejected both the servant and his Master,

and is rejected in turn by Him.

Here then the hatred of many Jews against Paul is revealed by another determined

plot to kill him. By now he was notorious and it is questionable how safe his life

could ever be again. Humanly speaking only the Roman guards and the fortress

Page 96: Acts 23 commentary

kept him safe from death. As it was with Jesus when He was in Jerusalem, so it is

with Paul. Plans were being made by the Jews to kill him.

HAWKER 12-22, "And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. (13) And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. (14) And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (15) Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you tomorrow, as though ye would inquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him. (16) And when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. (17) Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him. (18) So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. (19) Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul tomorrow into the council, as though they would inquire somewhat of him more perfectly. (21) But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. (22) So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me.

Reader! pause over the sad relation here recorded of those awful men! What a proof is here of the desperately wicked heart of man. See with what earnestness they entered into an oath, or as the Jews called it, cherem, or anathema, for shedding blood, which, if broken, called for God’s curse upon them that made it! Beheld no less the awful state of the chief priests and elders, who, as men, and especially as members of the Sanhedrim, the moment the proposal was made to them of bringing down Paul to the council for this purpose, should have brought them forth before the council to be punished for the intentional murder. But, Reader! mark with yet more earnest attention the overlooking and disposing grace of the Lord, to save his servant, and frustrate the devices of the wicked. See what a poor instrument in Paul’s sister’s son the Lord makes use of for this purpose. No doubt the Lord who sent his angel, and opened the prison doors upon several occasions before, (Act_5:18-20; Act_12:7 and Act_16:26) might have done it now. But the work and mercy were not less the Lord’s, because brought about by human means. And, oh! how frequently is the same grace manifesting itself now in life, in the daily ten thousand instances of it, were our inattentive minds awakened to watch and see how the Lord is watching over us, 2Ch_16:9. Who would have thought that this youth (for so he is called, 2Ch_16:14.) should have been chosen by the Lord for to be the highly honored instrument to save the life of this great Apostle! And how is his memory honored in the Church through all generations from that hour for the service, without which we should never have known that Paul had a sister, or that sister a son. Let all our youths, (if any such read this Poor Man’s Commentary,) learn from hence, how sure it is that the eye of the Lord is always upon them. And let the thought keep their minds under a constant regard to his Almighty inspection. And let them be looking to the Lord, while conscious that the Lord is always looking upon them, that they may seek for grace to be sanctified before Him. Who shall say whether the Lord may not, as in the instance here

Page 97: Acts 23 commentary

recorded concerning Paul, employ them to his service, and make them the honored instruments of his mercy to others, and bless them in their own souls also? I beg all such, if the Lord should bring those lines before them, not to pass away from this train of thoughts before that they have turned to those scriptures, and carefully read them. 1Ch_28:9; 2Ch_34:1-3; Pro_1:8-16; 2Ti_3:14-15.

MACLARE�, "A PLOT DETECTED

‘The wicked plotteth against the just. . . . The Lord will laugh at him.’ The Psalmist’s experience and his faith were both repeated in Paul’s case. His speech before the Council had set Pharisees and Sadducees squabbling, and the former had swallowed his Christianity for the sake of his being ‘a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee.’ Probably, therefore, the hatchers of this plot were Sadducees, who hated Pharisees even more than they did Christians. The Apostle himself was afterwards not quite sure that his skilful throwing of the apple of discord between the two parties was right (Act_24:21), and apparently it was the direct occasion of the conspiracy. A Christian man’s defence of himself and his faith gains nothing by clever tactics. It is very doubtful whether what Paul spoke ‘in that hour’ was taught him by the Spirit.

I. ‘The corruption of the best is the worst.’

There is a close and strange alliance between formal religion and murderous hatred and vulpine craft, as the history of ecclesiastical persecution shows; and though we have done with fire and faggot now, the same evil passions and tempers do still in modified form lie very near to a Christianity which has lost its inward union with Jesus and lives on surface adherence to forms. In that sense too ‘the letter killeth.’ We lift up our hands in horror at these fierce fanatics, ‘ready to kill’ Paul, because he believed in resurrection, angel, and spirit. We need to guard ourselves lest something of their temper should be in us. There is a devilish ingenuity about the details of the plot, and a truly Oriental mixture of murderous passion and calculating craft. The serpent’s wisdom and his poison fangs are both apparent. The forty conspirators must have been ‘ready,’ not only to kill Paul, but to die in the attempt, for the distance from the castle to the council-chamber was short, and the detachment of legionaries escorting the prisoner would have to be reckoned with.

The pretext of desiring to inquire more fully into Paul’s opinions derived speciousness from his ambiguous declaration, which had set the Council by the ears and had stopped his examination. Luke does not tell us what the Council said to the conspirators, but we learn from what Paul’s nephew says in Act_23:20 that it ‘agreed to ask thee to bring down Paul.’ So once more the tail drove on the head, and the Council became the tool of fierce zealots. No doubt most of its members would have shrunk from themselves killing Paul, but they did not shrink from having a hand in his death. They were most religious and respectable men, and probably soothed their consciences with thinking that, after all, the responsibility was on the shoulders of the forty conspirators. How men can cheat themselves for a while as to the criminality of indirectly contributing to criminal acts, and how rudely the thin veil will be twitched aside one day!

II. The abrupt introduction of Paul’s nephew into the story piques curiosity, but we cannot say more about him than is told us here.

We do not know whether he was moved by being a fellow-believer in Jesus, or simply by kindred and natural affection. Possibly he was, as his uncle had been, a student under some distinguished Rabbi. At all events, he must have had access to official circles to

Page 98: Acts 23 commentary

have come on the track of the plot, which would, of course, be covered up as much as possible. The rendering in the margin of the Revised Version gives a possible explanation of his knowledge of it by suggesting that he had ‘come in upon them’; that is, upon the Council in their deliberations. But probably the rendering preferred in the text is preferable, and we are left to conjecture his source of information, as almost everything else about him. But it is more profitable to note how God works out His purposes and delivers His servants by ‘natural’ means, which yet are as truly divine working as was the sending of the angel to smite off Peter’s chains, or the earthquake at Philippi.

This lad was probably not an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and that he should have been there then, and come into possession of the carefully guarded secret, was more than a fortunate coincidence. It was divinely ordered, and God’s finger is as evident in the concatenation of co-operating natural events as in any ‘miracle.’ To co-ordinate these so that they concur to bring about the fulfilment of His will may be a less conspicuous, but is not a less veritable, token of a sovereign Will at work in the world than any miracle is. And in this case how wonderfully separate factors, who think themselves quite independent, are all handled like pawns on a chessboard by Him who ‘makes the wrath of man to praise Him, and girds Himself with the remainder thereof!’ Little did the fiery zealots who were eager to plunge their daggers into Paul’s heart, or the lad who hastened to tell him the secret he had discovered, or the Roman officer who equally hastened to get rid of his troublesome prisoner, dream that they were all partners in bringing about one God-determined result-the fulfilment of the promise that had calmed Paul in the preceding night: ‘So must thou bear witness also at Rome.’

III. Paul had been quieted after his exciting day by the vision which brought that promise, and this new peril did not break his peace.

With characteristic clear-sightedness he saw the right thing to do in the circumstances, and with characteristic promptitude he did it at once. Luke wastes no words in telling of the Apostle’s emotions when this formidable danger was sprung on him, and the very reticence deepens the impression of Paul’s equanimity and practical wisdom. A man who had had such a vision last night might well possess his soul in patience, even though such a plot was laid bare this morning; and each servant of Jesus may be as well assured, as was Paul the prisoner, that the Lord shall ‘keep him from all evil,’ and that if his life is ‘witness’ it will not end till his witness is complete. Our faith should work in us calmness of spirit, clearness of perception of the right thing to do, swift seizing of opportunities. Paul trusted Jesus’ word that he should be safe, whatever dangers threatened, but that trust stimulated his own efforts to provide for his safety.

IV. The behaviour of the captain is noteworthy, as showing that he had been impressed by Paul’s personal magnetism, and that he had in him a strain of courtesy and kindliness.

He takes the lad by the hand to encourage him, and he leads him aside that he may speak freely, and thereby shows that he trusted him. No doubt the youth would be somewhat flustered at being brought into the formidable presence and by the weight of his tidings, and the great man’s gentleness would be a cordial. A superior’s condescension is a wonderful lip-opener. We all have some people who look up to us, and to whom small kindlinesses from us are precious. We do not ‘render to all their dues,’ unless we give gracious courtesy to those beneath, as well as ‘honour’ to those above, us. But the captain could clothe himself too with official reserve and keep up the dignity of his office. He preserved an impenetrable silence as to his intentions, and simply sealed the young man’s lips from tattling about the plot or the interview with him. Promptly he

Page 99: Acts 23 commentary

acted, without waiting for the Council’s application to him. At once he prepared to despatch Paul to Caesarea, glad enough, no doubt, to wash his hands of so troublesome a charge. Thus he too was a cog in the wheel, an instrument to fulfil the promise made in vision, God’s servant though he knew it not.

13 More than forty men were involved in this plot.

BAR�ES, "Which had made this conspiracy - This oath συνωµοσίαν

sunōmosian, this agreement, or compact. This large number of desperate men, bound by so solemn an oath, would be likely to be successful, and the life of Paul was therefore in special danger. The manner in which they purposed to accomplish their design is stated in Act_23:15.

GILL, "And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. Who met together, formed this resolution, entered into this scheme, and bound themselves with this oath; the word rendered "conspiracy", signifies an agreement by oath; such a number of them banded together, that they might have strength sufficient to take Paul out of the hands of the soldiers, as he was conducted by them from the castle to the temple.

PETT, "The size of the conspiracy comes out in that ‘forty’ men were involved.

Such a number would be needed in order to keep the attention of the Roman guards

who might be expected to escort the prisoner, while the assassination was taking

place. And the assassination had to take place in the short time before Paul reached

the Sanhedrin. Forty is regularly a number connected with judgment and trial

(forty days of rain at the Flood, forty days of Goliath calling on Israel to fight him in

the confidence that they would not, forty days of Elijah in the wilderness), and with

the giving of the Law (forty days in the mount twice over, without food and drink).

Perhaps they (or Luke) saw it as symbolic of their aim, to avenge the breaking of the

Law.

14 They went to the chief priests and the elders

and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat

anything until we have killed Paul.

Page 100: Acts 23 commentary

BAR�ES, "And they came ... - Probably by a deputation.

To the chief priests and elders - The members of the Great Council, or Sanhedrin. It is probable that the application was made to the party of the Sadducees, as the Pharisees had shown their determination to defend Paul. They would have had no prospect of success had they attacked the castle, and they therefore devised this mode of obtaining access to Paul, where they might easily despatch him.

Under a great curse - Greek: “We have anathematized ourselves with an anathema.” We have made the vow as solemn as possible.

GILL, "And they came to the chief priests, and elders,.... Who were members of the sanhedrim, to acquaint them with their designs:

and said, we have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul: these chief priests and elders, had they acted according to the character they bore, on such an information, would have taken up those men, and punished them, at least would have dissuaded them from so vile an action; but they knew the men to whom they applied, and very likely they were all of them of the sect of the Sadducees, whom Paul had so much offended the day before; and therefore were pleased with what they had done, approved of their scheme, and readily fell in with the following proposal.

HE�RY 14-15, "5. What method they took to bring it about. There is no getting near Paul in the castle. He is there under the particular protection of the government, and is imprisoned, not, as others are, lest he should do harm, but lest he should have harm done him; and therefore the contrivance is that the chief priests and elders must desire the governor of the castle to let Paul come to them to the council-chamber, to be further examined (they have some questions to ask him, or something to say to him), and the, in his passage from the castle to the council, they would put an end to all disputes about Paul by killing him; thus the plot was laid, Act_23:14, Act_23:15. Having been all day employed in engaging one another to this wickedness, towards evening they come to the principal members of the great sanhedrim, and, though they might have concealed their mean design and yet might have moved them upon some other pretence to send for Paul, they are so confident of their approbation of this villainy, that they are not ashamed nor afraid to own to them that they have bound themselves under a great curse, without consulting the priests first whether they might lawfully do it, that they will eat nothing the next day till they have killed Paul. They design to breakfast the next morning upon his blood. They doubt not but the chief priests will not only countenance them in the design, but will lend them a helping hand, and be their tools to get them an opportunity of killing Paul; nay, and tell a lie for them too, pretending to the chief captain that they would enquire something more perfectly concerning him, when they meant no such thing. What a mean, what an ill opinion had they of their priests, when they could apply to them on such an errand as this! And yet, vile as the proposal was which was made to them (for aught that appears), the priests and elders consented to it, and at the first work, without boggling at it in the least, promised to gratify them. Instead of reproving them, as they ought, for their wicked conspiracy, they bolstered them up in it, because it was against Paul whom they hated; and thus they made

Page 101: Acts 23 commentary

themselves partakers of the crime as much as if they had been the first in the conspiracy.

II. How the plot was discovered. We do not find that the plotters, though they took an oath of fidelity, took an oath of secrecy, either because they thought it did not need it (they would every one keep his own counsel) or because they thought they could accomplish it, though it should take wind and be known; but Providence so ordered it that it was brought to light, and so as effectually to be brought to nought. See here,

CALVI�, "14.They came to the chief priests. Seeing that the priests agree to such a

wicked and ungodly conspiracy, by this they prove that there was in them neither

any fear of God, neither yet any humanity. They do not only allow [approve] that

which is brought before them concerning the murdering of the man by laying wait,

but also they are ready to be partners in the murder, that they may deliver him into

the hands of the murderers, whom they would have made away some way, they pass

not how. For what other thing was it to take a man out of the hands of the judge and

to slay him, than like murderers to rage even in the very place of judgment? The

priests surely would never have allowed [approved] such a wicked purpose if there

had been in them any drop of godly and right affection, or of humane feeling.

Moreover, they did what they could to bring destruction upon all the people and

themselves also. But the Lord did by this means disclose their wicked impiety, which

lay hid under a color of honor. −

COKE, "Acts 23:14. We have bound ourselves under a great curse,— We have

bound ourselves by a solemn anathema, seems a proper rendering of the emphatic

original. Such execrable vows as these, were not unusual with the Jews, who

challenged to themselves a right of punishing those without any legal process, whom

they considered as transgressors of the law; and in some cases, thought that they

were justified in killing them. Josephus mentions a case not much unlike this, of

some who bound themselves with an oath to kill Herod; in which they gloried, as a

laudable intention, because he had violated the ancient custom of their nation. It is

no wonder therefore that these Jews should make no scruple of acquainting the

chief-priests and elders with their conspiracy against the life of St. Paul; who were

so far from blaming them for it, that, not long after they renewed the same design

themselves. Dr. Lightfoot has shewn from the Talmud, that if theywere prevented

from accomplishing such vows as these, it was an easy matter to obtain an

absolution from their rabbies.

ELLICOTT, "(14) They came to the chief priests and elders.—It will be

remembered that the high priest Ananias had already shown the rough brutality of

his nature in his treatment of St. Paul, and was now, we can scarcely doubt,

impelled by the spirit of revenge. It lies on the surface that those to whom the

conspirators went were the Sadducean party in the Council, not the more moderate

and cautious Pharisees.

We have bound ourselves under a great curse.—The Greek follows the Hebrew

idiom in expressing intensity by the reduplication of the leading word. laterally, We

have anathematised ourselves with an anathema.

Page 102: Acts 23 commentary

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:14-15. And they came to the chief priests and elders — Who

were of the sect of the Sadducees, and Paul’s greatest enemies, telling them what

they had done; and desiring them to ask the chief captain to bring Paul down to the

council on the morrow, as if they wished to inquire something more perfectly

concerning him, and we, (said they,) or ever he come near, are ready to kill him —

And we will manage the attack in such a manner, that you shall not appear at all

concerned in it; nor have any alarm about the matter, till you hear that he is

actually dead. Josephus mentions a case not much unlike this, of some that bound

themselves with an oath to kill Herod; in which they gloried as a laudable intention,

because he had violated the ancient customs of their nation. It is no wonder,

therefore, that these Jews should make no scruple of acquainting the chief priests

and elders with their conspiracy against the life of Paul; who, indeed, were so far

from blaming them for it, that not long after they renewed the same design

themselves. See Acts 25:2-3.

PETT 14-15, "All they needed now was the opportunity. So they went to the chief

priests and elders (they avoided the Pharisees) and informed them of their plans.

They pointed out that they had put themselves under a curse not to taste anything

until Paul was dead. Would the council now ask that Paul be brought before them

as before so as to get him out of the fortress. Then as soon as he was out they would

attack the guards, fall on him and slay him. The Romans would not be anticipating

any such attack in the short journey between the fortress and the Sanhedrin’s

meeting place by the Temple. And to the disgrace of the Sanhedrin it agreed.

15 �ow then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the

commander to bring him before you on the

pretext of wanting more accurate information

about his case. We are ready to kill him before he

gets here.”

BAR�ES, "Ye, with the council -With the concurrence or request of the Sanhedrin. It was only by such a request that they had any hope that the chief captain would remove Paul from the castle.

Signify to the chief captain - Send a message or request to him.

That he bring him down unto you - That he bring him from the castle to the usual place of the meeting of the Sanhedrin. As this was at some distance from the castle of Antonia, where Paul was, they supposed it would be easy to waylay him and take his life.

Page 103: Acts 23 commentary

To-morrow - This is missing in the Syriac, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions. It is, however, probably the correct reading of the text, as it would be necessary to convene the council, and make the request of the tribune, which might require the whole of one day.

As though ye would inquire ... - This request appeared so reasonable that they did not doubt that the tribune would grant it to the council. And though it was obviously a false and wicked pretence, yet these conspirators knew the character of the persons to whom they addressed themselves so well that they did not doubt that they would prevail on the council to make the request. Public justice must have been deeply fallen when it was known that such an iniquitous request could be made with the certain prospect of success.

Or ever he come near - Before he comes near to the Sanhedrin. The Great Council will thus not be suspected of being privy to the deed. We will waylay him, and murder him in the way. The plan was well laid; and nothing but the interposition of Providence could have prevented its execution.

CLARKE,"And we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him -We shall lie in wait, and despatch him before he can reach the chief captain. The plan was well and deeply laid; and nothing but an especial providence could have saved Paul.

GILL, "Now therefore ye with the council,.... The whole sanhedrim; their sense is, that they would have the sanhedrim convened by the chief priests and elders, and being met together, then to

signify to the chief captain; or let him know that they were assembled together, upon the affair of Paul, and that they here desirous he might be brought before them:

that he bring him down unto you tomorrow; from the castle of Antonia to the place where the sanhedrim met; the word "tomorrow" is not in the Alexandrian copy, nor in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and then it should seem that they desired him to be brought down forthwith, or otherwise they must propose to fast all that day, and so long on the morrow, till Paul was brought down; but that the common reading is right, appears from the chief captain's sending away Paul at the third hour of the night following, to prevent their designs on the morrow, Act_23:23. The pretence formed for his being brought down is,

as though ye would inquire something more perfectly concerning him; what he had done, which had occasioned this uproar, what it was he was charged with, and whether he was guilty or not:

and we, or ever he come near: where the sanhedrim sat;

are ready to kill him; lying in wait in some private place between the castle and the temple, from whence they intended to rush out at once upon him, and murder him; far enough both from the temple and the council, that both the one might not be defiled, though they did not greatly stick at that in those times, and that the other might not be charged with having any hand in his death.

Page 104: Acts 23 commentary

JAMISO�, "Now ... ye with the council signify to the chief captain ... as though, etc.— That these high ecclesiastics fell in readily with this infamous plot is clear. What will not unscrupulous and hypocritical religionists do under the mask of religion? The narrative bears unmistakable internal marks of truth.

or ever he come near— Their plan was to assassinate him on his way down from the barracks to the council. The case was critical, but He who had pledged His word to him that he should testify for Him at Rome provided unexpected means of defeating this well-laid scheme.

ELLICOTT, "(15) �ow therefore ye with the council . . .—The plot was necessary,

either (1) because the Sanhedrin had lost, under Roman rule, its power to inflict

capital punishment (see �otes on Acts 7:59; John 18:31); or (2) because, even if they

possessed that power, the chiliarch was not likely to allow its exercise in the case of a

Roman citizen; or (3) because the experience of the previous day had shown that the

violent party were not likely to obtain a majority in the Council. The plot was, so

far, skilfully laid. Even those who had said, “We find no evil in this man,” could

hardly oppose a proposal for a further investigation.

We, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.—The first word stands in the

Greek with a kind of ferocious emphasis “You may safely leave us to do our part.”

16 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this

plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.

BAR�ES, "Paul’s sister’s son - This is all that we know of the family of Paul. Nor do we know for what purpose he was at Jerusalem. It is possible that Paul might have a sister residing there; though, as Paul himself had been sent there formerly for his education, it seems more probable that this young man was sent there for the same purpose.

Entered into the castle - Paul had the privileges of a Roman citizen, and as no well-founded charge had been laid against him, it is probable that he was not very closely confined, and that his friends might have free access to him.

CLARKE,"Paul’s sister’s son - This is all we know of Paul’s family. And we know not how this young man got to Jerusalem; the family, no doubt, still resided at Tarsus.

Page 105: Acts 23 commentary

GILL, "And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait,.... Paul might have a sister living in Jerusalem; or this her son might be there on account of his studies; he might be a pupil to one of the doctors, by which means he might come at this secret, that such a number of men were in ambush, in order to take away his uncle's life: wherefore having got intelligence of it,

he went and entered into the castle; the Alexandrian copy reads, "the synagogue"; but Paul was not there, but in the castle of Antonia; the Ethiopic version renders it, "the prison"; though it is plain that he was not very closely confined, it was easy to have access to him; the reason might be, not only because he was a Roman, but because he was uncondemned, nor was any charge proved against him:

and told Paul; what he had heard, that such a number of men had entered into a conspiracy to take away his life, and lay in wait for him; and this was an instance both of duty and affection to his uncle, and worthy of imitation, whether it proceeded from natural relation, or from religion, or both.

HE�RY, "1. How it was discovered to Paul, Act_23:16. There was a youth that was related to Paul, his sister's son, whose mother probably lived in Jerusalem; and some how or other, we are not told how, he heard of their lying in wait, either overheard them talking of it among themselves, or got intelligence from some that were in the ploy: and he went into the castle, probably, as he used to do, to attend on his uncle, and bring him what he wanted, which gave him a free access to him and he told Paul what he heard. Note, God has many ways of bringing to light the hidden works of darkness; though the contrivers of them dig deep to hide them from the Lord, he can made a bird of the air to carry the voice (Ecc_10:20), or the conspirators' own tongues to betray them.

JAMISO�, "Paul’s sister’s son— (See on Act_9:30). If he was at this time residing at Jerusalem for his education, like Paul himself, he may have got at the schools those hints of the conspiracy on which he so promptly acted.

CALVI�, "16.Paul’s sister’s son. We see in this place how the Lord doth cross the

purposes of the ungodly. He permitteth them to attempt many things, and he

suffereth their wicked endeavors, but at length he showeth even in the twinkling of

an eye − (549) that he doth from heaven deride whatsoever men go about upon

earth. −

“There is no wisdom,” saith Solomon, “there is no counsel against the Lord,”

( Proverbs 21:30).

Whereto that of Isaiah doth answer, −

“Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought: speak the word, and it shall not

stand,”

( Isaiah 8:10). −

Page 106: Acts 23 commentary

This is set before our eyes to be considered, in this present history, as in a glass. The

matter was almost dispatched, that Paul should come out on the morrow to be slain

as an avowed sacrificed. − (550) But the Lord doth show that his life is most safely

kept, so that whatsoever men go about all is in vain. As for us, let us not fear but

that his providence, whereof he showed some token then, reacheth even unto the

defending of us, because this promise continueth sure, −

“There shall not an hair fall from your heads,” etc.

( Luke 21:18). −

Moreover, it is worth the noting, that he worketh sometimes by means unlooked for

to save those that be his, that he may the better exercise our faith. Who would have

thought that a boy would have disclosed their lying in wait, which those who were

partners in the conspiracy thought was known to none but to themselves?

Therefore, let us learn to lean unto and stay ourselves upon the Lord, though we see

no ordinary way to save ourselves, who shall find a way even through places where

nothing can pass.

“ Ipso articulo,” at the very nick of time

“ Devota victima,” a devoted victim.

COFFMA�, ""Paul's sister's son ... This is all that is known of this "young man,"

as Paul called him, and all that is known of Paul's sister; and we shall refrain from

indulging speculative guesses concerning them. It seems proper, however, to receive

the deduction of Conybeare to the effect that "The whole narrative gives the

impression that he was a very young man."[18] This is justified by the chiliarch's

taking him "by the hand" (Acts 23:19).

It would be interesting to know just how this lad learned so much about that

conspiracy, and if his mother was a Christian, and why, if they were living in

Jerusalem, Paul would have been staying with Mnason instead of his sister, etc.

Root's suggestion that "the young man" might have been "a rabbinical student in

Jerusalem as Paul himself had been a generation before"[19] is an example of the

guessing which scholars like to indulge.

[18] W. J. Conybeare, op. cit., p. 594.

[19] Orrin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p.

177.

ELLICOTT, "(16) Paul’s sister’s son.—The passage is note worthy as being the only

reference to any of St. Paul’s relations in the Acts. The fact that St. Paul lodged with

Mnason, as far as it goes, suggests the probability that neither the sister nor the

nephew resided permanently in Jerusalem. We do not even know whether they were

members of the Christian society, though this may, perhaps, be inferred from the

eagerness of the son to save his uncle from the danger which he know to be

Page 107: Acts 23 commentary

imminent. We find that St. Paul had kinsmen at Rome (Romans 16:7; Romans

16:11). Was this nephew one of them who had come to Jerusalem to keep the feast,

and heard the plot talked of (it is difficult to keep a secret in which forty men are

sharers) in the caravanserai where he and other pilgrims lodged? We see, from the

fact thus stated, that St. Paul, though in custody, was allowed to hold free

communication with his friends. This, perhaps, accounts for the fulness with which

the whole history is given. The writer of the Acts had come up with the Apostle, and

was not likely to desert his friend if he could possibly gain access to him.

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately

soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the

deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came

to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has

been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then

Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the

tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that

Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any

proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild,

condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them

speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this

whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain —

Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart,

charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

CO�STABLE 16-17, "We know nothing more about Paul's sister than what Luke

stated here. She may have lived in Jerusalem, Tarsus, or elsewhere. Obviously her

son, Paul's nephew, sided with his uncle rather than with the assassins. This is the

only reference to Paul's immediate family in the �ew Testament. Other writers used

the Greek word neanian, translated "young man" (Acts 23:17), of persons in their

twenties and thirties as well as younger men (cf. Acts 7:58; Acts 20:9). However,

Acts 23:19 suggests that he may have been younger than a teenager. Paul could

receive visitors in the barracks where he was a prisoner since he was a Roman

citizen in protective custody. He could also summon a centurion to do his bidding,

which he did here.

"I find today that there is a group of super-pious folk, very sincere and very well-

meaning, which tells me I should not go to a doctor concerning my cancer or other

illnesses but that I should trust the Lord to heal me. Well, I certainly do trust the

Lord; I have turned my case over to the Great Physician, and I believe He provides

doctors. It would have been a simple thing for Paul to have told his nephew,

'Thanks for telling me the news, but I'm trusting the Lord-so you can go back

home.' But we find here that Paul used the privileges of his Roman citizenship

which were available to him. Obviously the Lord provides these means and He

expects us to use them. This in no way means that we are not trusting Him. Rather,

we are trusting God to use the methods and the means to accomplish His purpose."

[�ote: McGee, 4:616.]

Page 108: Acts 23 commentary

17 Then Paul called one of the centurions and

said, “Take this young man to the commander; he

has something to tell him.”

BAR�ES, "Called one of the centurions -Who might at that time have had special charge of the castle, or been on guard. Paul had the most positive divine assurance that his life would be spared, and that he would yet see Rome; but he always understood the divine promises and purposes as being consistent with his own efforts, and with all proper measures of prudence and diligence in securing his own safety. He did not rest merely on the divine promises without any effort of his own, but he took encouragement from those promises to put forth his own exertions for security and for salvation.

CLARKE,"Bring this young man unto the chief captain - Though St. Paul had the most positive assurance from Divine authority that he should be preserved, yet he knew that the Divine providence acts by reasonable and prudent means; and that, if he neglected to use the means in his power, he could not expect God’s providence to work in his behalf. He who will not help himself, according to the means and power he possesses, has neither reason nor revelation to assure him that he shall receive any assistance from God.

GILL, "Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him,.... For under this chief captain there must have been ten of them, if the company of which he was captain consisted of a thousand men, as his title chief captain or chiliarch imports; for a centurion was over an hundred men, as his title signifies; perhaps this might be the same, as in Act_22:25

and said, bring this young man to the chief captain: which was a very prudential step, not to let the centurion into the secret, but to desire him to introduce the young man to the chief captain; for had he trusted the centurion with it, he might not have acquainted his officer with it, but have informed the liers in wait of it: now though the apostle was assured by Christ that he should not die at Jerusalem, but should bear witness of him at Rome, and though he did not distrust the truth of Christ's words, but most firmly believed them; yet he thought it his duty to make use of the means, which providence had put in his way, for his preservation and safety; the Ethiopic version

Page 109: Acts 23 commentary

reads, "bring this young man by night to the chief captain"; that so he might not be seen, and observed to have carried any intelligence to him:

for he hath a certain thing to tell him; which was of some moment and importance, and proper for him to know.

HE�RY, "2. How it was discovered to the chief captain by the young man that told it to Paul. This part of the story is related very particularly, perhaps because the penman was an eye-witness of the prudent and successful management of this affair, and remembered it with a great deal of pleasure. (1.) Paul had got a good interest in the officers that attended, by his prudent peaceable deportment. He could call one of the centurions to him, though a centurion was one in authority, that had soldiers under him, and used to call, not to be called to, and he was ready to come at his call (Act_23:17); and he desired that he would introduce this young man to the chief captain, to give in an information of something that concerned the honour of the government

JAMISO�, "Then Paul called one of the centurions— Though divinely assured of safety, he never allows this to interfere with the duty he owed to his own life and the work he had yet to do. (See on Act_27:22-25; see on Act_27:31).

CALVI�, "17.Calling unto him. Paul was not so desirous of life, but he would have

made haste to die, if the Lord had thought it good so to be; but because he knoweth

that he serveth Christ upon that condition, that he may no less live than die to him,

he doth not neglect to avoid the danger which was revealed to him. And though he

be fully persuaded that God is the keeper of his life, yet he doth not wait until God

put forth his hand out of heaven to work a miracle, but doth rather use the remedy

which is offered him; nothing doubting but that it is appointed by God. −

Thus must all the ministers of Christ deal, that being furnished with invincible

constancy, so far as their calling requireth, they fear not danger, and yet that they

cast not away themselves through rashness. Let them call upon the name of the Lord

cheerfully, even amidst the pikes; − (553) and yet let them not contemn those helps

which are offered; otherwise they shall be injurious to God, in that they are not only

not moved with his promises, − (554) but also despise the means which he hath

appointed for their deliverance. −

“ In mediis augustiis,” in the midst of straits.

“ Ad ejus promissiones surdi,” deaf to his promises

18 So he took him to the commander.

Page 110: Acts 23 commentary

The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for

me and asked me to bring this young man to you

because he has something to tell you.”

GILL, "So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain,.... Immediately, without any more to do, without curiously inquiring into the thing, or examining the young man about it; which showed him to be a man of a good disposition, and ready to do a kind office, even to a prisoner:

and said, Paul the prisoner called me to him; either vocally or by some gesture, beckoned him to him:

and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee; in which may be observed the apostle's manner of address to the centurion, on this occasion; it was by way of entreaty; he asked it as a favour of him, to introduce his nephew to the chief captain; and the honour and modesty of the centurion, he did not seek by any methods to get the secret out, either of Paul or the young man; but readily undertakes the affair, honourably performs it, acquaints the captain with the circumstances of it, tells him the young man had something to say to him, he could not tell what, and then departs.

HE�RY, "The centurion very readily gratified him, Act_23:18. He did not send a common soldier with him, but went himself to keep the young man in countenance, to recommend his errand to the chief captain, and to show his respect to Paul: “Paul the prisoner (this was his title now) called me to him, and prayed me to bring this young man to thee; what his business is I know not, but he has something to say to thee.” Note, It is true charity to poor prisoners to act for them as well as to give to them. “I was sick and in prison, and you went on an errand for me,” will pass as well in the account as, “I was sick and in prison, and you came unto me, to visit me, or sent me a token.” Those that have acquaintance and interest should be ready to use them for the assistance of those that are in distress. This centurion helped to save Paul's life by this piece of civility, which should engage us to be ready to do the like when there is occasion. Open thy mouth for the dumb, Pro_31:8. Those that cannot give a good gift to God's prisoners may yet speak a good word for them. (3.) The chief captain received the information with a great deal of condescension and tenderness, Act_23:19. He took the young man by the hand, as a friend or father, to encourage him, that he might not be put out of countenance, but might be assured of a favourable audience. The notice that is taken of this circumstance should encourage great men to take themselves easy of access to the meanest, upon any errand which may give them an opportunity of doing good - to condescend to those of low estate. This familiarity to which this Roman tribune or colonel admitted Paul's nephew is here upon record to his honour. Let no man think he disparages himself by his humility or charity. He went with him aside privately, that none might hear his business, and asked him, “What is it that thou hast to tell me? Tell me wherein I can be serviceable to Paul.” It is probable that the chief captain was the more obliging in this case because he was sensible he had run himself into a premunire

Page 111: Acts 23 commentary

in binding Paul, against his privilege as a Roman citizen, which he was willing now to atone for.

19 The commander took the young man by the

hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you

want to tell me?”

BAR�ES, "Took him by the hand - As an expression of kindness and civility. He did it to draw him aside from the multitude, that he might communicate his message privately.

GILL, "Then the chief captain took him by the hand,.... Some have thought that the reason of this was, that he expected that the young man had brought him a present in his hand, from Paul; but this is to represent him as a sordid mercenary man, which ought not to be said, without sufficient proof; rather this should be considered as an instance of civility and humanity, and what showed him to be a man of breeding and good manners; and might be done partly out of respect to Paul, and partly to encourage the young man to use freedom in the account he was about to give him:

and went with him aside privately; concluding by his coming from Paul, and perceiving by the account of the centurion, that he had a secret to communicate to him; wherefore it was acting a wise and prudent part to take him into a private room, and hear what he had to say:

and asked him, what is that thou hast to tell me? thereby giving the young man an opportunity, and encouraging him to relate the secret to him.

JAMISO�, "took him by the hand— This shows that he must have been quite in his boyhood, and throws a pleasing light on the kind-hearted impartiality of this officer.

CALVI�, "19.Taking him by the hand. In that the chief captain did show himself so

courteous to the young man, in that he led him by the hand into a secret place, in

that he vouchsafeth to hear him so gently, all this must be attributed to the grace of

God, who promised to give his people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, ( Exodus

3:21) who useth to mollify hard hearts, to tame fierce spirits, and to fashion those

unto all humanity, whom he hath determined to use as means to help those that be

his. A man trained up in the wars might no less have given this young man the

repulse, whom he knew not, than have despised Paul’s suit. Therefore, the Lord,

who hath in his hand the hearts of men, did frame the profane man to give ear unto

him. Also, it was well that he knew before how furiously they raged against Paul,

Page 112: Acts 23 commentary

that he might the more willingly succor a miserable and forsaken man. Those who

are in authority are taught by this example what a great virtue courtesy is. If it had

been a hard matter to come to him, − (555) he might, through ignorance, have

delivered Paul to the Jews to be put to death. So oftentimes magistrates do fall into

many and great offenses through their own pride, because they will not admit those

who would give them good counsel. −

CalIing unto him. And here we see the providence of God yet more manifestly; for

though this be the drift of the chief captain: to prevent a public uproar, whereof he

should have given an account before the governor, yet he executeth the counsel of

God in delivering Paul. For he was to gather soldiers together; also, the city must

needs be stripped of the garrison, and the voyage required some cost. Therefore: we

must so consider the wisdom of the chief captain, that our faith lift up her eyes into

heaven: and understand that God doth guide the heart of a profane man by a secret

instinct, and that he is at length a guide to Paul and the soldiers, that he may come

safe to Cesarea. The third hour of the night was the end of the first watch.

Therefore, it is all one as if the chief captain did command that the soldiers be in

readiness at the second watch. Luke calleth those who carried darts lancearios, who

being more lightly weaponed, were placed in the wings, when as the soldiers which

pertained unto the legions were more fit for set war. − (556)

“ Si difficilis ad eum fuisset accessus,” if he had been of difficult access.

“ Statariae militia ?,” stationary warfare.

COFFMA�, "The care with which Lysias protected himself against any possible

eavesdropping is notable, and his caution was well rewarded; for after receiving the

tip-off on what was afoot, he could move without the temple conspirators'

knowledge that he had intentionally acted to thwart their murder of an innocent

man. In the political climate of that era, this was decidedly to his advantage.

20 He said: “Some Jews have agreed to ask you to

bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the

pretext of wanting more accurate information

about him.

Page 113: Acts 23 commentary

BAR�ES, "And he said ... - In what way this young man had received intelligence of this, we can only conjecture. It is not improbable that he was a student under some one of the Jewish teachers, and that he might have learned it of him. It is not at all probable that the purpose of the 40 men would be very closely kept. Indeed, it is evident that they were not themselves very anxious about concealing their oath, as they mentioned it freely to the chief priests and elders, Act_23:14.

GILL, "And he said, the Jews have agreed to desire thee,.... By the Jews are meant, the Jewish sanhedrim, for the young man had not only intelligence of the conspiracy, and lying in wait of the forty men or more; but also of the agreement which the sanhedrim at the motion of these men were come into, to make the following request to the chief captain; which seems to confirm the above conjecture, that this young man might be a student under the president of the council, or one of the doctors, whereby he came at the knowledge of these things:

that thou wouldst bring down Paul tomorrow into the council, &c. See Gill on Act_23:15.

HE�RY, "The young man delivered his errand to the chief captain very readily and handsomely (Act_23:20, Act_23:21). “The Jews” (he does not say who, lest he should invidiously reflect upon the chief priests and the elders; and his business was to save his uncle's life, not to accuse his enemies) “have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul tomorrow into the council, presuming that, being so short a distance, thou wilt send him without a guard; but do not thou yield unto them, we have reason to believe thou wilt not when thou knowest the truth; for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty me, who have sworn to be the death of him, and now are they ready looking for a promised from thee, but I have happily got the start of them

COFFMA�, "The full and concise manner of "the young man's" report suggests

that he was at least of sufficient age to grasp all the details of the plot, indicating

also the exercise of a rather subtle diplomacy. Whereas the plotters proposed that

the council should have Paul brought down, in order that "they" the council might

further examine him, the young man's report of it gave the right of inquiry to the

chiliarch, "as though thou wouldest inquire."

PETT 20-21, "Then the lad explained what he had overheard. On the next day the

Jews would pretend that they wanted to question Paul, but really it was simply a

ruse in order to get Paul out of the fortress. Once he left the fortress they would

attack the guards and kill him. All they were now waiting for was the chief captain’s

promise that Paul would be forthcoming. �o doubt the chief captain questioned the

lad about the source of his information, and was satisfied. He would know that the

High Priest Ananias was quite likely to be involved in such a plot. It was typical of

his methods.

Page 114: Acts 23 commentary

21 Don’t give in to them, because more than forty

of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have

taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have

killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your

consent to their request.”

BAR�ES, "Looking for a promise from thee -Waiting for your consent to bring him down to them.

GILL, "But do not thou yield unto them,.... Or be persuaded by them, to bring Paul down from the castle to the sanhedrim; this must not be imputed to the young man's pride and vanity, in taking upon him to give advice to the chief captain; but to his great affection for his uncle, which moved him to entreat, rather than to direct him, for which he gives a good reason:

for there lie in wait for him more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him; See Gill on Act_23:12. See Gill on Act_23:13.

and now are they ready; to execute their designs, being met together, and lying in ambush in some place, between the castle and the place where the sanhedrim met:

looking for a promise from thee; that when the sanhedrim should apply to him, he would promise them to bring Paul down according to their request; and for the making and performing of this promise, these men were waiting.

JAMISO�, "and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee—Thus, as is so often the case with God’s people, not till the last moment, when the plot was all prepared, did deliverance come.

22 The commander dismissed the young man with

this warning: “Don’t tell anyone that you have

reported this to me.”

Page 115: Acts 23 commentary

GILL, "So the chief captain then let the young man depart,.... After he had had the account from him, and was master of the whole affair:

and charged him, see thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me; which was prudently said; it was a right and wise thing to conceal this matter, that the men might go on with their designs, and an opportunity be taken to convey Paul away, before the time came fixed by them to execute them; for otherwise, should it have been known that their plot was discovered, they would have entered upon new measures.

HE�RY, "The captain dismissed the young man with a charge of secrecy: See that thou tell no man that thou hast shown these things unto me, Act_23:22. The favours of great men are not always to be boasted of; and not fit to be employed in business. If it should be known that the chief captain had this information brought to him, perhaps they would compass and imagine the death of Paul some other way; “therefore keep it private.”

III. How the plot was defeated: The chief captain, finding how implacable and inveterate the malice of the Jews was against Paul, how restless they were in their designs to do him a mischief, and how near he was to become himself accessory to it as a minister, resolves to send him away with all speed out of their reach. He received the intelligence with horror and indignation at the baseness and bloody-mindedness of these Jews; and seemed afraid lest, if he should detain Paul in his castle here, under ever so strong a guard, they would find some way or other to compass their end notwithstanding, either beating the guards or burning the castle; and, whatever came of it, he would, if possible, protect Paul, because he looked upon it that he did not deserve such treatment. What a melancholy observation is it, that the Jewish chief priests, when they knew of this assassination-plot, should countenance it, and assist in it, while a Roman chief captain, purely from a natural sense of justice and humanity, when he knows it, sets himself to baffle it, and puts himself to a great deal of trouble to do it effectually!

Paul Transferred to Caesarea

23 Then he called two of his centurions and

ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two

hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two

hundred spearmen[b] to go to Caesarea at nine

tonight.

Page 116: Acts 23 commentary

BAR�ES, "And he called unto him two centurions ... - Each centurion had under him 100 men. The chief captain resolved to place Paul beyond the power of the Jews, and to protect him as became a Roman citizen.

Two hundred soldiers - These foot soldiers were designed only to guard Paul until he was safely out of Jerusalem. The horsemen only were intended to accompany him to Caesarea. See Act_23:32.

And horsemen - These were commonly attached to foot soldiers. In this case, however, they were designed to attend Paul to Caesarea.

And spearmen - δεξιολάβους dexiolabous.” This word is found nowhere else in the New Testament, and occurs in no Classical writer. It properly means those who take, or apprehend by the right hand; and might be applied to those who apprehend prisoners, or to those who hold a spear or dart in the right hand for the purpose of throwing it.

Some have conjectured that it should be read δεξιοβόλους dexiobolous - those who cast or throw (a spear) with the right hand. So the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Arabic understand it. They were probably those who were armed with spears or darts, and who attended on the tribune as a guard.

At the third hour of the night - At nine o’clock. This was in order that it might be done with secrecy, and to elude the band of desperadoes that had resolved to murder Paul. If it should seem that this guard was very numerous for one man, it should be remembered:

(1) That the number of those who had conspired against him was also large; and,

(2) That they were men accustomed to scenes of blood; men of desperate characters who had solemnly sworn that they would take his life.

In order, therefore, to deter them effectually from attacking the guard, it was made very numerous and strong. Nearly 500 men were appointed to guard Paul as he left Jerusalem.

CLARKE,"Two hundred soldiers - Στρατιωτας, Infantry or foot soldiers.

Horsemen threescore and ten - There was always a certain number of horse, or cavalry, attached to the foot.

Spearmen - ∆εξιολαβους, Persons who held a spear or javelin in their hand; from εν�

τC�δεξιD�λαβειν taking or holding a thing in the right hand. But the Codex Alexandrinus

reads δεξιοβολους, from δεξια, the right hand, and βαλλειν, to cast or dart, persons who threw javelins. But both words seem to mean nearly the same thing.

The third hour of the night - About nine o’clock p.m., for the greater secrecy, and to elude the cunning, active malice of the Jews.

GILL, "And he called to him two centurions,.... Who had each of them an hundred soldiers under them:

Page 117: Acts 23 commentary

saying, make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea; which was formerly called Strato's tower, a sea port town, where Felix the Roman governor now was; it was six hundred furlongs, or seventy five miles (f) from Jerusalem: these two hundred soldiers were foot soldiers, as appears by their being distinguished from horsemen in the next clause, and were just the number that the two centurions had the command of; the making of them ready, was their seeing to it, that they were properly clothed, and accoutred with arms and ammunition, and with sufficient provision for their journey:

and horsemen threescore and ten; the Ethiopic version reads, "a hundred"; but without support from any copy: "and spearmen two hundred"; who carried spears in their right hand; the word used signifies such who receive, lay hold on, or hold anything in their right hand: some think it designs such who were employed in the militia, to lay

hold on guilty persons, and hold them; the Alexandrian copy reads, δεξιοβολους, "those that cast with the right hand"; and so reads the Syriac version, to which the Arabic agrees, which renders it "darters"; such as carried darts in their hands, and did not shoot out of a bow, but cast darts with their hands: now these being got ready, were ordered to march,

at the third hour of the night; at nine o'clock at night, that they might go out unobserved, and before the petition from the sanhedrim was presented to him.

HE�RY 23-24, "1. He orders a considerable detachment of the Roman forces under his command to get ready to go to Caesarea with all expedition, and to bring Paul thither to Felix the governor, where he might sooner expect to have justice done him than by the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem. I see not but the chief captain might, without any unfaithfulness to the duty of his place, have set Paul at liberty, and given him leave to shift for his own safety, for he was never legally committed to his custody as a criminal, he himself owns that nothing was laid to his charge worthy of bonds (Act_23:29), and he ought to have had the same tenderness for his liberty that he had for his life; but he feared that this would have incensed the Jews too much against him. Or perhaps, finding Paul to be a very extraordinary man, he was proud to have him his prisoner, and under his protection; and the mighty parade with which he sent him off intimates as much. Two centurions, or captains of the hundreds, are employed in this business, Act_23:23, Act_23:24. They must get ready two hundred soldiers, probably those under their own command, to go to Caesarea; and with these seventy horse, and two hundred spearmen besides, which some think were the chief captain's guards; whether they were horse or foot is not certain, most probably foot, as pikemen for the protection of the horse. See how justly God brought the Jewish nation under the Roman yoke, when such a party of the Roman army was necessary to restrain them from the most execrable villanies! There needed not all this force, there needed not any of it, to keep Paul from being rescued by his friends; ten times this force would not have kept him from being rescued by an angel, if it had pleased God to work his deliverance that way, as he had sometimes done; but, (1.) The chief captain designed hereby to expose the Jews, as a headstrong tumultuous people, that would not be kept within the bounds of duty and decency by the ordinary ministers of justice, but needed to be awed by such a train as this; and, hearing how many were in the conspiracy against Paul, he thought less would not serve to defeat their attempt. (2.) God designed hereby to encourage Paul; for, being thus attended, he was not only kept safely in the hands of his friends, but out of the hands of his enemies. Yet Paul did not desire such a guard, any more than Ezra did

Page 118: Acts 23 commentary

(Ezr_8:22), and for the same reason, because he trusted in God's all-sufficiency; it was owing, however, to the governor's own care. But he was also made considerable; thus his bonds in Christ were made manifest all the country over (Phi_1:13); and, son great an honour having been put upon them before by the prediction of them, it was agreeable enough that they should be thus honourably attended, that the brethren in the Lord might wax the more confident by his bonds, when they same him rather guarded as the patriot of his country than guarded against as the pest of his country, and so great a preacher made so great a prisoner. When his enemies hate him, and I doubt his friends neglect him, then does a Roman tribune patronise him, and carefully provide, [1.] For his ease: Let them provide beasts, that they may set Paul on. Had his Jewish persecutors ordered his removal by habeas corpus to Caesarea, they would have made him run on foot, or dragged him thither in a cart, or on a sledge, or have horsed him behind one of the troopers; but the chief captain treats him like a gentleman, though he was his prisoner, and orders him a good horse to ride upon, not at all afraid that he should ride away. Nay, the order being that they should provide, not a beast, but beasts, to set Paul on, we must either suppose that he was allowed so great a piece of state as to have a led horse, or more, that if he did not like one he might take to another; or (as some expositors conjecture) that he had beasts assigned him for his friends and companions, as many as pleased to go along with him, to divert him in his journey, and to minister to him. [2.] For his security. They have a strict charge given them by their commander in chief to bring him safely to Felix the governor, to whom he is consigned, and who was supreme in all civil affairs among the Jews, as this chief captain was in military affairs. The Roman historians speak much of this Felix, as a man of mean extraction, but that raised himself by his shifts to be governor of Judea, in the execution of which office, Tacitus, Hist. 5, says this of him: Per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercui - He used royal power with a servile genius, and in connection with all the varieties of cruelty and lust. To the judgement of such a man as this is poor Paul turned over; and yet better so than in the hands of Ananias the high priest! Now, a prisoner, thus upon his deliverance by course of law, ought to be protected as well as a prince.

2. The chief captain orders, for the greater security of Paul, that he be taken away at the third hour of the night, which some understand of three hours after sun-set, that, it being now after the feast of pentecost (that is, in the midst of summer), they might have the cool of the night to march in. Others understand it of three hours after midnight, in the third watch, about three in the morning, that they might have the day before them, and might get out of Jerusalem before Paul's enemies were stirring, and so might prevent any popular tumult, and leave them to roar when they rose, like a lion disappointed of his prey.

JAMISO�, "two hundred soldiers— a formidable guard for such an occasion; but Roman officials felt their honor concerned in the preservation of the public peace, and the danger of an attempted rescue would seem to require it. The force at Jerusalem was large enough to spare this convoy.

the third hour of the night— nine o’clock.

HAWKER 23-35, "And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; (24) And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor. (25) And he wrote a letter after this

Page 119: Acts 23 commentary

manner: (26) Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting. (27) This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman. (28) And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council: (29) Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. (30) And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Farewell. (31) Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris. (32) On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: (33) Who, when they came to Caesarea, and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him. (34) And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia; (35) I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall.

I should not have thought it necessary to have detained the Reader at this place, but to remark to him how the Lord must have wrought, upon this chief captain’s mind, through fear for his own safety to provide for Paul’s. It appears from his letter to Felix, as here inserted, that he wanted to shew the governor what an high regard he had fur the Roman name, but he artfully concealed that he had bound Paul, while he tells him that he understood he was a Roman. And I pray the Reader yet further to observe, with what contempt he speaks of the accusations brought against Paul, which he called questions of their law. The resurrection of the dead, and a world to come, which Paul was called in question for, (see Act_23:6) was, in this poor heathen’s view, things of no moment! Reader! think of your mercies in Christ! Since the Son of God brought life and immortality to light through his Gospel, oh! how precious the thought, that these things are no longer questionable, 2Ti_1:10. Oh! what unspeakable mercies hath Jesus brought his Church! And, oh! what distinguishing grace, when a soul is made the happy partaker of Christ, and all his mercies with him? Heb_3:14. Reader! what saith your heart to both?

COFFMA�, "The whole force was 470 men; and their departure at the third hour

of the night (9:00 P.M.) was thus well ahead of any request the chief priests might

send to him the next day; and the size of the escort was large enough to kill any

thought of the forty conspirators of following it, overtaking it, and murdering Paul

anyway. This abruptly aborted their plot.

Provide beasts ... This has been variously understood as the need of several mounts

for Paul, which would be changed from time to time on such a forced march; or as

including mounts for the soldiers guarding Paul, and to whom he was still

presumably chained; or as including sufficient mounts for Luke and other

companions of Paul. The text affords no way of knowing exactly what all might have

been included.

Felix the governor ... This was the procurator of Judaea, one of the successors of

Pontius Pilate, although the office itself, for a time, had disappeared under the rule

of Herod Antipas I, who was king over the whole area once ruled by Herod the

Great; and, of course, during his reign no procurators were needed. However,

Page 120: Acts 23 commentary

Herod was summarily slain by an angel of God (Acts 12:23) in 44 A.D.; and after

that, the old system of procurators was revived.

FELIX

Felix Marcus Antonius, a brother of Pallas, the notorious favorite of Claudius,

through influence at Rome, was named procurator of Judaea about 52 A.D., an

office he held until recalled by �ero in 59 A.D. He was succeeded by Festus. Thus,

this is another date in secular history that touches and illuminates Acts. The events

being described by Luke in this chapter occurred two years before the recall of

Felix, that is, in 57 A.D.[20] (This favors a 55 A.D. date for Romans.)

Felix, trading on his influence in Rome, was an unscrupulous scoundrel. Paul was

innocent, and should have been released at once; but Felix hoped to get a fat bribe,

and kept Paul in prison. He put down certain brigands and robbers, "but he himself

was worse than any of them."[21] Hervey tells how he "murdered Jonathan the

high priest, using the ASSASSI�S,"[22] one of the "high priests" who held office

during the term of Ananias, whose high priesthood was interrupted.

The epitaph which history has written by his name is this: "With savagery and lust,

he exercised the powers of a king with the disposition of a slave."

[20] The �ew Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans,

Publishers, 1962), p. 421.

[21]; ISBE, Vol. II, pp. 1105.

[22] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 211.

ELLICOTT, "(23) Spearmen two hundred . . .—Literally, right hand graspers. The

word was a strictly technical one, and seems to have been applied to those light

armed troops who carried a light spear or javelin in their right hands, as contrasted

with those who carried the old spear, with a heavier shaft, which had to be wielded

by both. They are coupled by the military writers of the Byzantine empire with

archers and peltastæ, or light shield-bearers. The escort seems a large one for a

single prisoner, but the tumults of the previous days, and the information just

received as to the conspiracy, gave the chiliarch good reason to apprehend a

formidable attack.

At the third hour of the night.—Assuming that St. Luke uses the Jewish reckoning,

this would be about 9 or 10 p.m. It was evidently the object of the chiliarch to place

the prisoner beyond the reach of an attack before daybreak. With this view, all, as

well as the horsemen, were to be mounted.

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could

particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief

captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the

Page 121: Acts 23 commentary

governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul

on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. —

To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman

method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and

perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them,

who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With

a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood

that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

CO�STABLE 23-24, "The commander also realized that Paul's enemies in

Jerusalem would stop at nothing to see him dead. As long as Paul was in Jerusalem

there was a danger of rioting. Consequently Claudius prepared to send him to the

Roman provincial capital with a heavy guard under cover of night. The number of

soldiers may have been 270 or 470 depending on the meaning of dexiolaboi,

"spearmen." This word may refer to foot soldiers or to led horses. [�ote:

Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," p. 535; �eil, p. 231.] The question is whether there

were 200 infantry and 70 cavalry, plus 200 spearmen or 200 extra horses. The third

hour of the night was 9:00 p.m. This is the third time Paul left a city secretly at night

(cf. Acts 9:25; Acts 17:10). Obviously Claudius Lysias did not want the assassination

of a Roman citizen on his record, so he took precautions to protect Paul. Paul's

guards continued to treat him with the respect due a Roman citizen. The

commander even provided horses for him to ride on.

"The size of the escort is not excessive, in view of the troubled times and Jewish

fanaticism." [�ote: Ibid.]

PETT, "Then he called two centurions and told them to take a largish force and

escort Paul to Caesarea, to the procurator Felix in the procurator’s palace. This

force was to be comprise of two hundred soldiers, seventy cavalry and two hundred

‘dexialabous’ or (in A) ‘dexiabolous’ (we do not know the meaning of the first word.

Possibly it signifies light-armed soldiers, or right handed bowmen or spearmen or

slingers, or even pack horses so as to give the impression that the expedition had

another purpose. Dexiabolous probably indicates right-handed slingers). This would

deprive the fortress of a good proportion of its force for a short while, but the chief

captain could not be sure how many men they might have to deal with if anything

was suspected and they were waylaid. He was quite well aware of the excited state of

the populace, which was continually in a state of ferment at this time, which could

easily be roused to assist any attempt on a small force. He may, however, have also

taken the opportunity of fulfilling another errand, hence the packhorses, and simply

have brought that aim forward. Paul was also to be provided with a horse, and one

for his luggage. They left at 21:00 hours that evening. Hopefully no one would

suspect the reason for the departure. There was no reason why they should.

Page 122: Acts 23 commentary

24 Provide horses for Paul so that he may be

taken safely to Governor Felix.”

BAR�ES, "And provide them beasts - One for Paul, and one for each of his

attendants. The word translated “beasts” κτήνη ktēnē is of a general character, and may be applied either to horses, camels, or donkeys. The latter were most commonly employed in Judea.

Unto Felix the governor - The governor of Judea. His place of residence was Caesarea, about 60 miles from Jerusalem. See the notes on Act_8:40. His name was Antonius Felix. He was a freedman of Antonia, the mother of the Emperor Claudius. He was high in the favor of Claudius, and was made by him governor of Judea. Josephus calls him Claudius Felix. He had married three wives in succession that were of royal families, one of whom was Drusilla, afterward mentioned in Act_24:24, who was sister to King Agrippa. Tacitus (History, v. 9) says that he governed with all the authority of a king, and the baseness and insolence of a slave. “He was an unrighteous governor, a base, mercenary, and bad man” (Clarke). See his character further described in the notes on Act_24:25.

CLARKE,"Provide them beasts - One for Paul, and some others for his immediate keepers.

Felix the governor - This Felix was a freed man of the Emperor Claudius, and brother of Pallas, 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. E libertis Antonius Felix per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit. Hist. v. 9. He had, according to Suetonius, in his life of Claudius, chap. 28, three queens to his wives; that is, he was married thrice, and each time to the daughter or niece of a king. Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa, was his wife at this time; see Act_24:24. He was an unrighteous governor; a base, mercenary, and bad man: see Act_24:2.

GILL, "And provide them beasts,.... Horses or mules; the Syriac version reads in the singular number, "a beast": and one being sufficient for Paul, here may be a change of number; the Arabic and Ethiopic versions leave out these words, but the following clause makes them necessary:

that they may set Paul on; on the beast, or on one of the beasts provided; if more than one were provided, they might be for his companions, to go along with him:

and bring him safe unto Felix the governor; this man, of a servant, was made a freed man by Claudius Caesar (g), and by him appointed in the room of Cumanus governor of Judea (h); he was the brother of Pallas, who had the chief management of affairs under the emperor; and this Felix married three persons successively, that were

Page 123: Acts 23 commentary

of royal families; hence Suetonius (i) calls him the husband of three queens; one of these was Drusilla, afterwards mentioned in Act_24:24 who was sister to King Agrippa. Tacitus calls him Antonius Felix (k) which name he had from Antonia the mother of Claudius', whose servant he was; Josephus (l) calls him Claudius Felix, which name he took from the Emperor Claudius, who from so low and mean condition raised him to such honour and dignity; his name Felix signifies "happy": according to Tacitus (m), when Felix was first sent into Judea, the government was divided between him and Cumanus; Felix had Samaria, and Cumanus the other part, which was called the nation of the Galilaeans; but Josephus takes no notice of any such division, he says (n), that Cumanus was banished; and after that Felix was sent by Caesar, governor of Judea, of Galilee, Samaria, and Peraea; and so he seems to be governor of the whole country at this time; he was now at Caesarea, and it is plain that Judea was under his government, since Paul, a prisoner at Jerusalem, is sent down unto him; and in this his government he continued during the life of Claudius; and when Nero became emperor, and added four cities to the kingdom of Agrippa, he constituted Felix governor of the rest of Judea (o); which character he bore till he thought fit to remove him, and put Festus in his room, of whom mention is made hereafter: after these words the following ones are added, in the Vulgate Latin version, "for he was afraid lest perhaps the Jews should take him by force and kill him, and afterwards he should bear the reproach, as if he had took money"; but they are not to be found in any Greek copies.

JAMISO�, "beasts ... set Paul on— as relays, and to carry baggage.

unto Felix, the governor— the procurator. See on Act_24:24, Act_24:25.

ELLICOTT, "(24) Felix the governor.—The career of the procurator so named is

not without interest as an illustration of the manner in which the Roman empire was

at this time governed. In the household of Antonia, the mother of the Emperor

Claudius, there were two brothers, first slaves, then freed-men, Antonius Felix and

Pallas. The latter became the chosen companion and favourite minister of the

emperor, and through his influence Felix obtained the procuratorship of Judæa.

There, in the terse epigrammatic language of Tacitus, he governed as one who

thought, in his reliance on his brother’s power, that he could commit any crime with

impunity, and wielded “the power of a tyrant in the temper of a slave” (Tacit. Ann.

xii. 54; Hist. v. 9). His career was infamous alike for lust and cruelty. Another

historian, Suetonius (Claud. c. 28), describes him as the husband of three queens,

whom he had married in succession:—(1) Drusilla, the daughter of Juba, King of

Mauritania and Selene, the daughter of Autonius and Cleopatra. (2) Drusilla, the

daughter of Agrippa I. and sister of Agrippa II. (See Acts 23:24.) She had left her

first husband, Azizus, King of Emesa, to marry Felix (Jos. Ant. xx. 7. § 1). Their son,

also an Agrippa, died in an eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79 (Jos. Ant. xx. 7, § 2). The

name of the third princess is unknown.

25 He wrote a letter as follows:

Page 124: Acts 23 commentary

CLARKE,"He wrote a letter after this manner - It appears that this was not only the substance of the letter, but the letter itself: the whole of it is so perfectly formal as to prove this; and in this simple manner are all the letters of the ancients formed. In this also we have an additional proof of St. Luke’s accuracy.

GILL, "And he wrote a letter after this manner. The chief captain wrote a letter to Felix the governor, the form and sum of which were as follow; this letter he sent by one of the centurions to him.

HE�RY, "3. He writes a letter to Felix the governor of this province, by which he discharges himself from any further care about Paul, and leaves the whole matter with Felix. This letter is here inserted totidem verbi - erbatim, Act_23:25. It is probable that Luke the historian had a copy of it by him, having attended Paul in this remove. Now in this epistle we may observe,

CALVI�, "25.And he wrote a letter. First, we must briefly admonish the readers

who have not been conversant in histories, that this Felix was brother to Pallas, who

being Caesar’s freeman, became equal with the chief of the city in wealth and

power. Yea, moreover, the senate gave him the ornaments of the praetor, not

without titles of filthy and shameful flattery. Therefore, seeing the servants of

Claudius abusing his folly, did rule the Roman empire at their pleasure, and chiefly

�arcissus and Pallas, no marvel if this latter did appoint his brother to be governor

of Judea. The sum of the epistle tendeth to this end, that the chief captain may help

Paul with his prejudice; − (557) and may admonish Felix of the injuries of his

adversaries, and may so discredit them, that they may not be able to do him any

hurt. −

“ Suo praejudicio,” by bearing previous testimony in his favour.

COFFMA�, "Here is revealed the name of the chief captain. The coincidence of his

being called "Claudius" at a time when Claudius was emperor might have resulted

from Lysias' mere annexation of the name "as a compliment to the emperor, such

liberties being then common."[23]

Felix ... See under preceding verse. In addition to what is said above, Felix'

importance is further seen in the fact that his outrageous and unprincipled conduct

did much to precipitate the war in 70 A.D. which led to the ruin of Israel.

Dummelow said: "His folly and cruelty goaded the nation into disaffection and

rebellion."[24]

[23] W. R. Walker, op. cit., p. 75.

Page 125: Acts 23 commentary

[24] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (�ew York: The Macmillan

Company, 1937), p. 849.

PETT 25-35, "Paul In The Hands of The ‘Most Excellent’ Felix (23:25-35).

The ‘most excellent’ Felix, to whom Paul was being taken, was a freedman who had

been appointed as procurator, a most unusual situation. Procurators were usually of

equestrian rank. His appointment was an act of favouritism to his brother and he

proved to be what he was, and by his behaviour in Palestine increased the hatred of

Rome. Tacitus says of him that ‘practising every kind of cruelty and lust he wielded

royal power with the instinct of a slave’ (which of course he had been). His method

of exacting his will was by violence and crucifixions. He married three times, and

each time into royalty. His first wife was the granddaughter of Anthony and

Cleopatra, his present and third wife was Drusilla, a very beautiful Jewess and

daughter of Agrippa I. She had been married when young to Azizus, king of Emesa,

a petty Syrian king, but Felix saw her shortly after her wedding, desired her, and

through the services of a magician from Cyprus prevailed on her to desert her

husband and marry him in defiance of the Law which both forbade such behaviour

and forbade her marriage to a pagan. This was typical of the man. Tacitus says, ‘he

believed that he could commit all kinds of enormities with impunity’. He was not

very reliable.

Under his procuratorship hostility against Rome increased enormously, resulting in

the expansion of the influence of the zealots, and he then reacted viciously against

them by hunting them down remorselessly and dealing with them with extreme

cruelty. This simply produced a further reaction which resulted in general hatred

and contempt and a huge increase in the number of ‘assassins’ (sicarii), men who

mingled in crowds with hidden daggers and secretly murdered collaborators, until

no one in Jerusalem with political connections could feel safe.

His behaviour also resulted in the incident of the Egyptian mentioned previously in

Acts 21:38, who was in fact but one of a number who around this time led groups

into the wilderness so as to receive the ‘omens of freedom’ and seek to establish the

kingdom of God, only to face a vengeful and bloodthirsty Felix with his soldiers. We

are told that after the defeat of the Egyptian more and more fanatics arose and

‘incited many to revolt, exhorting them to exert their independence and threatening

to kill any who submitted willingly to Roman domination, and to suppress all those

who would voluntarily accept servitude. Deploying in gangs throughout the country

they looted the houses of the nobles and killed their owners and set villages on fire,

so that all Judaea felt the effects of their frenzy’ (Josephus). Thus around this time

the country was in turmoil, a turmoil which would never in fact finally cease until it

resulted in the Roman invasion and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

This uneasy situation further explains the large escort.

In fact during the period when Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea a dispute arose

between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants there over equality of citizenship The

Jews claimed precedence because Herod the Great had founded the city. The

Page 126: Acts 23 commentary

Syrians on the other hand were understandably reluctant to give way and claimed

that the city had always been intended to be a Gentile city. Thus for a time there was

a good deal of street fighting between the two parties. At one stage when the Jews

had gained the upper hand Felix stepped in and using his soldiers, quelled them by

force, handing over their houses to be plundered by the soldiers, something that

would inevitably produce a complaint against him. When the rioting continued he

sent leading men of both groups to Rome for �ero to decide the issue. But the Jews

had complained to the emperor about his behaviour and before the matter was

settled Felix was recalled, and recognising that the Jews might press their complaint

about his behaviour tried to pacify them by leaving Paul in prison, hoping it would

help his case with them. In the end he only escaped severe punishment because of

his brother’s influence.

However, in the same way as the tyrant Herod Antipas feared John the Baptiser, so

Felix appears to have feared Paul. �evertheless he still kept him in prison when he

could have released him, and this because he was hoping that Paul would be willing

to pay him a large bribe. He was the worst type of Roman governor.

BARCLAY 25-35, "The seat of Roman government was not in Jerusalem but in

Caesarea. The praetorium (Greek #4232) is the residence of a governor; and the

praetorium in Caesarea was a palace which had been built by Herod the Great.

Claudius (Greek #2804) Lysias (Greek #3079) wrote his letter, absolutely fair and

completely impartial, and the cavalcade set out. It was 60 miles from Jerusalem to

Caesarea and Antipatris was 25 miles from Caesarea. Up to Antipatris the country

was dangerous and inhabited by Jews; after that the country was open and flat,

quite unsuited for any ambush and largely inhabited by Gentiles. So at Antipatris

the main body of the troops went back and left the cavalry alone as a sufficient

escort.

The governor to whom Paul was taken was Felix and his name was a byword. For

five years he had governed Judaea and for two years before that he had been

stationed in Samaria; he had still two years to go before being dismissed from his

post. He had begun life as a slave. His brother, Pallas, was the favourite of �ero.

Through the influence of Pallas, Felix had risen first to be a freedman and then to

be a governor. He was the first slave in history ever to become the governor of a

Roman province. Tacitus, the Roman historian, said of him, "He exercised the

prerogatives of a king with the spirit of a slave." He had actually been married to

three princesses one after another. The name of the first is not known; the second

was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, the

daughter of Herod Agrippa the First. He was completely unscrupulous and was

capable of hiring thugs to murder his own closest supporters. It was to face a man

like that that Paul went to Caesarea.

Page 127: Acts 23 commentary

26 Claudius Lysias,

To His Excellency, Governor Felix:

Greetings.

BAR�ES, "Unto the most excellent governor Felix - The most honored, etc. This was a mere title of office.

Greeting - A term of salutation in an epistle wishing health, joy, and prosperity.

GILL, "Claudius Lysias, unto the most excellent Governor Felix,.... This is the inscription of the letter, and by it we learn the name of the chief captain, so often spoken of in this and the two preceding chapters, which was Claudius Lysias; the first of these names is a Roman one, and which he might take from the Emperor Claudius, for he was not a Roman born; and the latter seems to be a Greek name, and was his proper name, and, he himself very likely was a Greek, since he purchased his freedom with money; one of this name was Archon of Athens (p); and another is reckoned by Cicero (q), among the famous orators of Greece, and is often cited by Harpocratian (r); one of Antiochus's noblemen, and who was of the blood royal, and acted as a general against the Jews, was of this name (s).

"So he left Lysias, a nobleman, and one of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of Egypt:'' (1 Maccabees 3:32)

The chief captain calls Felix the governor

the most excellent, which was a title of honour that belonged to him as a governor; the same is given to Theophilus, Luk_1:3 sendeth greeting; or wishes all health and prosperity.

HE�RY, "(1.) The compliments he passes upon the governor, Act_23:26. He is the most excellent governor Felix, this title being given him of course, his excellency, etc. He sends him greeting, wishes him all health and prosperity; may he rejoice, may he ever rejoice.

JAMISO�, "Claudius— the Roman name he would take on purchasing his citizenship.

Lysias— his Greek family name.

the most excellent governor— an honorary title of office.

Page 128: Acts 23 commentary

ELLICOTT, "(26) Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix.—The

letter may have been sent unsealed, or a copy of it may have been given to St. Paul

or St. Luke after his arrival. What we have obviously purports to be a verbal

reproduction of it. We note (1) that the epithet “most excellent” is that which St.

Luke uses of Theophilus, to whom he dedicates both the Gospel and the Acts (Luke

1:3; Acts 1:1), and (2) that the formal salutation, “greeting,” is the same as that used

in the letter of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23) and in the Epistle of St. James

(James 1:1).

27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were

about to kill him, but I came with my troops and

rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman

citizen.

BAR�ES, "Should have been killed of them -Was about to be killed by them. The life of Paul had been twice endangered in this manner, Act_21:30; Act_23:10.

With an army -With a band of soldiers, Act_23:10.

GILL, "This man was taken by the Jews,.... Meaning Paul, who was presented by the centurions to the governor, and was in his presence when the letter was opened and read, and who was taken by the Jews in the temple, and from thence dragged out and beaten by them:

and should have been killed of them; and would have been killed, had it not been for the chief captain; he was very near being killed by them, he was nigh unto death:

then came I with an army and rescued him; he came with the Roman band, which he had the command of, perhaps a thousand soldiers; for such a number he should have under him by his title; with these he came upon the Jews on a sudden, as they were beating Paul, and took him out of their hands, and saved him:

having understood that he was a Roman; but this he did not know till afterwards, after he had bound him with two chains, and after he had ordered him to be bound with thongs, and examined by scourging; all which he covers and hides from the governor, and suggests that it was his great concern for the Roman name, and for a Roman citizen, which put him upon this enterprise.

HE�RY, "(2.) The just and fair account which he gives him of Paul's case: [1.] That he was one that the Jews had a pique against: They had taken him, and would have killed

Page 129: Acts 23 commentary

him; and perhaps Felix knew the temper of the Jews so well that he did not think much the worse of him for that, Act_23:27. [2.] That he had protected him because he was a Roman: “When they were about to kill him, I came with an army, a considerable body of men, and rescued him;” which action for a citizen of Rome would recommend him to the Roman governor

JAMISO�, "came I with an army— rather, “with the military.”

CALVI�, "27.This man being taken. This was spoken odiously concerning the Jews,

that he might purchase more favor for Paul, that a man, being a Roman, was by

them sore beaten, and almost slain; also, he commendeth him for the right and

privilege of his freedom, that he may be the more courteously handled.

Furthermore, this commendation was not purchased by prayer or flattery, neither

was it bought with money. How came it to pass, then, that the chief captain did show

himself so courteous freely to an obscure man, and whom all men did hate, save only

because the Lord had appointed him to be his servant’s patron? Therefore, we see

how he governeth the tongues and hands of the infidels to the profit of those that be

his. −

COFFMA�, "LYSIAS' LETTER

This is a classical example of a self-serving distortion of truth to serve selfish and

political ends. "Having learned that he was a Roman ..." implies that the rescue was

made to prevent harm to a Roman citizen, whereas Lysias did not even know that he

was a Roman until after he had illegally bound him, a fact left comfortably out of

sight in his letter!

The genuineness of such a document as this is evident in every nuance of it. This was

politics as it was played in the Roman Empire in those days. Alas, it may be feared

that the same old game goes on in the same old way in all times and places.

Significantly, Paul is sent to Felix, not as a criminal, but as a fellow citizen rescued.

If an honorable man had held the office then entrusted to Felix, Paul would have

been released at once.

ELLICOTT, "(27) Then came I with an army.—Better, with my troops. The chief

captain ingeniously colours his statement so as to claim credit for having rescued a

Roman citizen, though, as a matter of fact, he did not discover that he was a citizen

until he was on the point of scourging him without a trial. That fact, of course, is

passed over without a word.

CO�STABLE 27-30, "The commander put himself in the best light possible in view

of the facts. He mentioned his "rescue" of Paul in the temple courtyard but did not

say that he almost flogged Paul. �ew in this letter is the mention of Paul's arrest by

the Jews, evidently the Jewish temple police. Lysias wrote that he had rescued Paul

because he knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, but the commander only learned of

Page 130: Acts 23 commentary

Paul's Roman citizenship after he had arrested him (Acts 21:34; Acts 22:26-27). Of

particular importance is the notice that in Lysias' judgment Paul was not guilty of

any crime (cf. John 18:38), but his case only involved disputes over Jewish theology

(cf. Gallio in Acts 18:14-15). This was another judgment favoring not only Paul but

Christianity by a Roman official that Luke carefully documented (cf. Acts 19:40;

Acts 23:9; Acts 25:25; Acts 26:31-32). Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul

appeared (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, and Festus) declared him innocent. Undoubtedly

Claudius Lysias told the Jewish leaders to go to Caesarea after Paul had left

Jerusalem.

28 I wanted to know why they were accusing him,

so I brought him to their Sanhedrin.

GILL, "And when I would have known the cause,.... Or crime, he was guilty of:

wherefore they accused him: which they charged him with, and for which they beat him almost to death:

I brought him forth into their council; their court of judicature, the great sanhedrim.

HE�RY 28-29, "That he could not understand the merits of his cause, nor what it was that made him so odious to the Jews, and obnoxious to their ill-will. He took the proper method to know: he brought him forth into their council (Act_23:28), to be examined there, hoping that, either from their complaints or his own confession, he would learn something of the ground of all this clamour, but he found that he was accused of questions of their law (Act_23:29), about the hope of the resurrection of the dead, Act_23:6. This chief captain was a man of sense and honour, and had good principles in him of justice and humanity; and yet see how slightly he speaks of another world, and the great things of that world, as if that were a question, which is of undoubted certainty, and which both sides agreed in, except the Sadducees; and as if that were a question only of their law, which is of the utmost concern to all mankind! Or perhaps he refers rather to the question about their rituals than about their doctrinals, and the quarrel he perceived they had with him was for lessening the credit and obligation of their ceremonial law, which he looked upon as a thing not worth speaking of. The Romans allowed the nations they conquered the exercise of their own religion, and never offered to impose theirs upon them; yet, as conservators of the public peace, they wound not suffer them, under colour of their religion, to abuse their neighbours. [4.] That thus far he understood that there was nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds, much less proved or made out against him. The Jews had, by their wickedness, made themselves odious to the world, had polluted their own honour and profaned their own crown, had brought disgrace upon their church, their law, and their

Page 131: Acts 23 commentary

holy place, and then they cry out against Paul, as having diminished the reputation of them; and was this a crime worthy of death or bonds?

29 I found that the accusation had to do with

questions about their law, but there was no charge

against him that deserved death or imprisonment.

BAR�ES, "Questions of their law - So he understood the whole controversy to be.

Worthy of death - By the Roman law. He had been guilty of no crime against the Roman people.

Or of bonds - Of chains, or of confinement.

GILL, "Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law,.... As about the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, which some in the council denied, and some asserted, which with this heathen man were idle and foolish questions; or about the defiling of the temple, and speaking contemptibly of the law of Moses, the people of the Jews, and the holy place, which was the cry of the populace against him, and were things the captain knew little of:

but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death, or of bonds: by the laws of the Romans; and yet he himself had bound him with two chains at the first taking of him, and afterwards ordered him to be bound with thongs, and scourged, of which he says nothing, being convinced of his error, and willing to hide it; however, he bears a full testimony to the innocence of the apostle.

JAMISO�, "perceived to be accused of questions of their law, etc.— Amidst all his difficulty in getting at the charges laid against Paul, enough, no doubt, come out to satisfy him that the whole was a question of religion, and that there was no case for a civil tribunal.

CALVI�, "29.Whom I perceived In this place he acquitteth Paul, so far as his

judgment could reach. But let us note that a profane man speaketh. For among the

people of God it is an offense worthy of no less punishment, to corrupt the doctrine

of godliness with wicked, and false opinions, than to do injury to, or commit

wickedness among men. The Romans would not have suffered their superstitions, or

reigned worshippings of their gods, to be freedom; − (558) but forasmuch as they

made no account of the law of God, yea, seeing they were desirous to have the same

quite put out, it was among them no fault to believe Moses and the prophets no

more, or to trouble the Church with false opinions. Therefore, there was a law, that

the governors should not meddle with such matters; but that those who were

abiding in the provinces should so retain their religion, that if anything were done

Page 132: Acts 23 commentary

contrary to the same, the Roman magistrates should not meddle with the punishing

thereof. This is the reason why the chief captain thinketh it no offense to have

moved questions concerning the law. And under color hereof, unlearned men will

have leave granted to themselves and others amiss to cause trouble. The Lord saith

far otherwise, who doth more sharply punish the violating of his worship, than any

injuries done to men. And surely nothing is more absurd than to let those who rob

God of his honor escape scot free, − (559) seeing theft is punished. But as the chief

captain careth not for the Jewish religion, so the false accusations and slanders of

the Jews are refuted, wherewith they would gladly have burdened Paul. −

“ Convelli,” to be plucked up, eradicated.

“ Quam sacrilegiis impunitatem dare,” than to let blasphemers escape without

punishment.

ELLICOTT, "(29) Accused of questions of their law.—The points which probably

presented themselves to the chiliarch’s mind as the result of his inquiries were—(1)

that the prisoner was accused of transgressing the rules of the Temple; (2) that the

question at issue seemed to be whether he had seen a teacher named Jesus risen

from the dead; (3) whether that teacher was entitled to the name of Christ.

30 When I was informed of a plot to be carried

out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I

also ordered his accusers to present to you their

case against him.

CLARKE,"I sent straightway to thee - As the proper person before whom this business should ultimately come, and by whom it should be decided.

Farewell - ΕρHωσο, Be in good health.

GILL, "And when it was told me,.... As it was by Paul's sister's son,

how that the Jews laid wait for the man; had formed a conspiracy to take away his life, and laid a scheme in order to it, and at least intended, if they were not actually in ambush, to seize him as he should be brought from the castle to the sanhedrim:

I sent straightway to thee; the prisoner Paul, under a guard of soldiers; this he did

Page 133: Acts 23 commentary

directly, as soon as ever he heard of the design of the Jews; and he sent him to Felix, as being governor, to whom the judgment of this affair properly belonged, and who was best qualified for it, at least in the chief captain's account; and who doubtless consulted his own honour and safety, lest he should incur blame and disgrace, should a Roman have been slain through any neglect or want of care in him:

and gave commandment to his accusers also, to say before thee what they had against him; it is reasonable to conclude, that he said nothing of this to them, though he might have determined he would, till after Paul was sent away; otherwise the affair would have been discovered, which he desired might be concealed:

farewell; which is the conclusion of the epistle, and is a wish of health and happiness.

HE�RY, "(3.) His referring Paul's case to Felix (Act_23:30): “When it was told me that the Jews laid wait for the man, to kill him, without any legal process against him, I sent straightaway to thee, who art the most proper person to head the cause, and give judgment upon it, and let his accusers go after him, if they please, and say before thee what they have against him, for, being bred a soldier, I will never pretend to be a judge, and so farewell.”

JAMISO�, "gave commandment to his accusers ... to say before thee— This was not done when he wrote, but would be before the letter reached its destination.

CALVI�, "30.When it was showed to me. The second part of the epistle where the

chief captain doth bring the adversaries into contempt, − (560) because they went

about to kill Paul treacherously. Whence it is also gathered, that they trouble Paul

unjustly, and that they sought so sore against his life without any cause. For if they

had persecuted him lawfully, they would have trusted to the goodness of their cause,

and not have suffered him to be judged according to law. �ow, when as they seek to

kill him, it appeareth that they have no reason. −

“ Odium in adversarios retorquet,” retorts upon his adversaries their hatred.

ELLICOTT, "(30) Farewell.—The closing formula, like the opening one, agrees

with that used in the letter of the Council of Jerusalem. The “commandment” given

to the accusers to go down to Cæsarea was probably given in answer to the high

priest’s application for another inquiry before the Sanhedrin. We are not told what

became of the vow of the forty conspirators. They doubtless considered themselves

absolved from it as soon as they heard of the prisoner’s removal, and their fast

probably did not last longer than eighteen or twenty hours.

PETT, "Then someone had shown him that there was to be a plot against Paul,

which is why he has sent him to Felix, also informing his accusers that they too must

go to Felix to lay their charges.

The chief captain had no rights of judgment. Thus as he was uncertain as to

whether any blame could lie at Paul’s door, he had sent him to the one who was

Page 134: Acts 23 commentary

responsible for judgment, with an explanation of the facts as he knew them.

31 So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took

Paul with them during the night and brought him

as far as Antipatris.

BAR�ES, "To Antipatris - This town was anciently called Cafar-Saba. Josephus says (Antiq., Act_13:23) that it was about 17 miles from Joppa. It was about 26 miles from Caesarea, and, of course, about 35 miles from Jerusalem. Herod the Great changed its name to Antipatris, in honor of his father Antipater. It was situated in a fine plain, and watered with many springs and fountains. Eli Smith, late missionary to Palestine, who took a journey from Jerusalem to Joppa for the purpose of ascertaining Paul’s route, supposes that the site of Antipatris is the present Kefr Saba. Of this village he gives the following description in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843: “It is a Muslim village of considerable size, and wholly like the most common villages of the plain, being built entirely of mud. We saw but one stone building, which was apparently a mosque, but without a minaret. No old ruins, nor the least relic of antiquity, did we anywhere discover. A well by which we stopped, a few rods east of the houses, exhibits more signs of careful workmanship than anything else. It is walled with hewn stone, and is 57 feet deep to the water. The village stands upon a slight circular eminence near the western hills, from which it is actually separated, however, by a branch of the plain.”

CLARKE,"Antipatris - This place, according to Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. 23, was anciently called Capharsaba, and is supposed to be the same which, in 1 Maccabees 7:31, is called Capharsalama, or Carphasalama. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great, and denominated Antipatris, in honor of his father Antipater. It was situated between Joppa and Caesarea, on the road from Jerusalem to this latter city. Josephus says it was fifty stadia from Joppa. The distance between Jerusalem and Caesarea was about seventy miles.

GILL, "Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul,.... Out of the castle, and put him upon a beast, as the chief captain had ordered the centurions, and they had directed the soldiers to do:

and brought him by night to Antipatris: they set out from Jerusalem at the third hour, or about nine o'clock at night, and travelled all night, and by break of day came to Antipatris; a city which lay in the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea: it was built by Herod the great, in the best soil of his kingdom, enriched with rivers and woods (t); and was so called by him, in memory of his father Antipater; it before went by the name of Chabar

Page 135: Acts 23 commentary

Zaba (u), or Capharsaba; the Jewish writers place it in the utmost borders of the land of Judea (w); hence that phrase so often used by them, from Gebath to Antipatris (x), in like sense as from Dan to Beersheba, these two places being the utmost borders of the land; here it was that Simon the just, with some of the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem, met Alexander the great, who travelled all night, as these soldiers with Paul did, and came to Antipatris at sun rising (y). It was forty two miles from Jerusalem. It was in the road from Judea to Galilee, as appears from the following canon of the Jews, concerning divorces (z);

"if a husband says to his wife, lo, this is thy divorce, if I do not come thirty days hence, and he goes from Judea to Galilee, and comes to Antipatris and returns, it becomes void:''

the way from Jerusalem to Caesarea lay through Nicopolis, Lydda, Antipatris, and Betthar; from Jerusalem to Nicopolis, according to the old Jerusalem Itinerary (a), were twenty two miles; from thence to Lydda, ten miles; and from Lydda to Antipatris ten more (which make forty two miles, as before observed); and from Antipatris to Betthar ten miles, and from thence to Caesarea, sixteen more: so that when the apostle was at Antipatris, he had twenty six miles more to go to Caesarea; and hence it appears, that the length of the journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea was sixty eight miles; though Josephus (b) makes the distance to be six hundred furlongs, or seventy five miles: and that the way from the one to the other lay through the places before mentioned, may be illustrated from what the same writer says, of some persons travelling from Caesarea to Jerusalem; so he relates (c), concerning Quadratus governor of Syria, that from Tyre he came to Caesarea, from Caesarea to Lydda, and from Lydda to Jerusalem; and of Cestius the Roman general, he says (d), that from Caesarea he came to Antipatris, and from Antipatris to Lydda, and from Lydda to Jerusalem, which clearly seems to be the same road the apostle went; and so Jerom (e), in the account he gives of the journey of Paula, says, that she came to Caesarea, where she saw the house of Cornelius, the cottage of Philip, and the beds of the four virgin prophetesses; and from thence to Antipatris, a little town half pulled down, which Herod called after his father's name; and from thence to Lydda, now Diospolis, famous for the resurrection of Dorcas, and the healing of Aeneas. Antipatris is, by Ptolomy (f), placed at the west of Jordan, and is mentioned along with Gaza, Lydda, and Emmaus; some take it to be the same with Capharsalama, mentioned in:

"Nicanor also, when he saw that his counsel was discovered, went out to fight against Judas beside Capharsalama:'' (1 Maccabees 7:31)

and others say, it is the same that is since called Assur or Arsuf, a town on the sea coast, which is not likely, since it does not appear that Antipatris was a maritime city. The apostle could not now stay to preach the Gospel in this place, nor do we elsewhere read or hear of a Gospel church state in it, until the "fifth" century; when it appears (g) there was a church here, and Polychronius was bishop of it, who was present at the council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451; and in the "eighth" century there were many Christians dwelt here, for in the year 744 there were many of them killed by the Arabians.

HE�RY, "4. Paul was accordingly conducted to Caesarea; the soldiers got him safely out of Jerusalem by night, and left the conspirators to consider whether they should east and drink or no before they had killed Paul; and, if they would not repent of the

Page 136: Acts 23 commentary

wickedness of their oath as it was against Paul, they were now at leisure to repent of the rashness of it as it was against themselves; if any of them did starve themselves to death, in consequence of their oath and vexation at their disappointment, they fell unpitied. Paul was conducted to Antipatris, which was seventeen miles from Jerusalem, and about the mid-way to Caesarea, Act_23:31. Thence the two hundred foot-soldiers, and the two hundred spearmen, returned back to Jerusalem, to their quarters in the castle; for, having conducted Paul out of danger, there needed not strong a guard, but the horsemenmight serve to bring him to Caesarea, and would do it with more expedition; this they did, not only to save their own labour, but their master's charge; and it is an example to servants, not only to act obediently according to their masters' orders, but to act prudently, so as may be most for their masters' interest.

JAMISO�, "brought him ... to Antipatris— nearly forty miles from Jerusalem, on the way to Caesarea; so named by Herod in honor of his father, Antipater.

COFFMA�, "Antipatris, 26 miles south of Caesarea, was rebuilt by Herod the

Great in honor of his father Antipater (hence the name).[25] Plumptre gave the

distance from Jerusalem as 42 miles;[26] others say it was 38.

Brought him to Antipatris by night ... means one of two things: (1) Paul and his

escort of 470 men made a forced march in order to arrive at Antipatris the same

night they left Jerusalem, or (2) that they stopped en route, arriving at Antipatris

the next night. The words are capable of either construction.

Came to Caesarea ... Boles appropriately observed that:

They entered Caesarea in daylight, and such a parade would have attracted many

curious eyes. Philip and other Christians of Caesarea must have been startled to

recognize the rapid fulfillment of prophecy concerning Paul's journey to Jerusalem.

[27]

[25] �ew Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 43.

[26] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 158.

[27] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 375.

COKE, "Acts 23:31. Antipatris.— Very different accounts are given of the situation

of Antipatris, which must however have been north-west of Jerusalem, as it was in

the way from thence to Caesarea. Its ancient name was Caphar Salama, 1

Maccabees 7:31. But Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it the name of Antipatris,

in honour of his father Antipater. It was something more than thirty-eight of our

miles from Jerusalem. Probably the soldiers thus hastened, lest the Jews, in their

rage against St. Paul, should pursue them. However, it is not necessary to conclude

that St. Paul was carried thither in one night, or that the soldiers returned in one

day: it is only said that they travelled by night, which they might do, and rest by the

Page 137: Acts 23 commentary

way, nor is it probable that they took St. Paul with them by night from Jerusalem,

and reached Caesarea the next day, when it appears from Josephus, that from

Jerusalem to Caesarea was near seventy miles.

ELLICOTT, "(31) Antipatris.—The town, built by Herod the Great, and named

after his father, is represented by the modern Kefr-Saba, answering to the Caphar

Saba of Josephus (Ant. xvi. 5, § 2). It was about forty-two miles from Jerusalem and

twenty-six from Cæsarea. Traces of a Roman road have been discovered between it

and Jerusalem, more direct by some miles than the better known route through the

pass of Beth-horon. Having started probably at or about midnight, they would

reach this town about six or seven A.M. They would then be practically beyond all

danger of pursuit or attack, and the foot-soldiers therefore returned, as no longer

needed, to their barracks in the Tower Antonia, leaving the horsemen to go on with

him.

BE�SO�, "Acts 23:31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris —

But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our

miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in

honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem,

about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-

hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when

he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be

used as a kind of state prison.

CO�STABLE 31-32, "Paul's trip back to Caesarea 23:31-32

The large contingent of Roman soldiers escorted Paul through the Judean hill

country and the Shephelah (foothills) to the town of Antipatris about 37 miles

northwest of Jerusalem. The remaining 28 miles to Caesarea lay over flatter terrain

in an area that had a sparser Jewish population. Paul's party travelled this area in

daylight. The foot soldiers returned to Jerusalem from Antipatris, and the 70

remaining cavalry soldiers escorted Paul the rest of the way to Caesarea.

Paul's departure from Jerusalem was the first leg of his journey to Rome. God had

used Paul as His witness in Jerusalem again and had preserved him to witness to the

uttermost part of the earth.

32 The next day they let the cavalry go on with

him, while they returned to the barracks.

BAR�ES, "They left the horsemen - As they were then beyond the danger of the conspirators, the soldiers who had guarded them thus far returned to Jerusalem.

Page 138: Acts 23 commentary

CLARKE,"On the morrow they left the horsemen - Being now so far from Jerusalem, they considered Paul in a state of safety from the Jews, and that the seventy horse would be a sufficient guard; the four hundred foot, therefore, returned to Jerusalem, and the horse went on to Caesarea with Paul. We need not suppose that all this troop did reach Antipatris on the same night in which they left Jerusalem; therefore, instead of, they brought him by night to Antipatris, we may understand the text thus -Then the soldiers took Paul by night, and brought him to Antipatris. And the thirty-second verse need not to be understood as if the foot reached the castle of Antonia the next day, (though all this was possible), but that, having reached Antipatris, and refreshed themselves, they set out the same day, on their march to Jerusalem; on the morrow they returned, that is, they began their march back again to the castle. See on Act_24:1 (note).

GILL, "On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him,.... That is, the two hundred soldiers, and the two hundred spearmen, who were all on foot, left the seventy horsemen to conduct Paul to Caesarea; for being come to Antipatris, all danger from the Jews was over:

and returned to the castle; the castle Antonia in Jerusalem, from whence they set out.

JAMISO�, "On the morrow they— the infantry.

left the horsemen— themselves no longer needed as a guard. The remaining distance was about twenty-five or twenty-six miles.

CALVI�, "32.And the next day. Though Luke did not express before that the

soldiers were commanded to return before they came at their way’s end, yet it is

certain, that they were appointed to accompany him only unto that place where the

chief captain thought Paul would be safe; for he went out privily in the night. And

the chief captain knew that so soon as they had finished some part of their journey,

there was no farther danger, because the adversaries could have no hope to overtake

him; and that it was no point of wisdom − (561) to send part of the garrison far

away.

“ Tutum... non esse,” it was not safe.

33 When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they

delivered the letter to the governor and handed

Paul over to him.

Page 139: Acts 23 commentary

CLARKE,"Who - That is, the seventy horsemen mentioned above.

GILL, "Who, when they came to Caesarea,.... The seventy horsemen:

and delivered the epistle to the governor; to Felix, governor of Judea, who was now at Caesarea; namely, the letter which Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, sent to him; the form and contents of which are before given:

these presented Paul also before him; concerning whom, and whose affairs, the letter was.

HE�RY 33-35, "5. He was delivered into the hands of Felix, as his prisoner, Act_23:33. The officers presented the letter, and Paul with it, to Felix, and so discharged themselves of their trust. Paul had never affected acquaintance or society with great men, but with the disciples, wherever he came; yet Providence overrules his sufferings so as by them to give him an opportunity of witnessing to Christ before great men; and so Christ had foretold concerning his disciples, that they should be brought before rulers and kings for his sake, for a testimony against them,Mar_13:9. The governor enquired of what province of the empire the prisoner originally was, and was told that he was a native of Cilicia,Mar_13:34; and, (1.) He promises him a speedy trial (Act_23:35): “I will hear thee when thing accusers have come, and will have an ear open to both sides, as becomes a judge.” (2.) He ordered him into custody, that he should be kept a prisoner in Herod's judgment-hall, in some apartment belonging to that palace which was denominated from Herod the Great, who built it. There he had opportunity of acquainting himself with great men that attended the governor's court, and, no doubt, he improved what acquaintance he got there to the best purposes.

CO�STABLE, "3. Ministry in Caesarea 23:33-26:32

Paul's ministry in Caesarea was from prison. Luke devoted about three chapters to

Paul's ministry in Caesarea primarily to reemphasize the legality of Christianity as

various Roman officials scrutinized it and to repeat major themes in Paul's

addresses.

Verse 33

The governor (procurator) of Judea at this time was Antonius Felix (A.D. 52-59).

[�ote: Cf. Bruce, "Chronological Questions ...," pp. 284-87; David W. J. Gill, "Acts

and Roman Policy in Judaea," in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol.

4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 21-25.] Pontius Pilate occupied

this office from A.D. 26-36. Felix had a reputation for being a harsh ruler who had

risen from a lowly background. The Roman historian Tacitus described him as

follows.

". . . Antonius Felix, practiced every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of

Page 140: Acts 23 commentary

[a] king with all the instincts of a slave." [�ote: Tacitus, The Histories, 5:9.]

He was apparently a freed man, someone who had been a bondsman but had

received his freedom from an authoritative Roman who in this case was Emperor

Claudius' mother, Antonia. He was the first slave ever to become the governor of a

Roman province. [�ote: Barclay, p. 184.] Felix rose to power as a result of his

influential brother, his self-serving political maneuvering, and his three calculating

marriages. He normally dealt very severely with Jews, especially the dagger-men,

the terrorists who sought to overthrow Roman rule by assassinating key Romans

and pro-Roman Jews (cf. Acts 21:38).

34 The governor read the letter and asked what

province he was from. Learning that he was from

Cilicia,

BAR�ES, "Of what province he was - Greek: of what heparchy Iπαρχίας eparchiashe was. He knew from the letter of Lysias that he was a Roman, but he was not informed of what place or province he was. This he doubtless did in order to ascertain whether he properly belonged to his jurisdiction. Roman provinces were districts of country which were entrusted to the jurisdiction of procurators. How far the jurisdiction of Felix extended is not certainly known. It appears, however, that it included Cilicia.

Was of Cilicia - Tarsus, the birthplace of Paul, was in this province, Act_21:39.

GILL, "And when the governor, had read the letter,.... Which he doubtless opened and read as soon as he had received it, not knowing what important business might be contained in it, or of what dangerous consequence a neglect of reading it might be; this showed care and diligence in him:

he asked of what province he was; since he perceived by the letter he was a Roman, and that he might know whether he was under his jurisdiction, and whether the hearing of his case belonged to him; and it should seem that it rather belonged to the governor of Syria; but that the crimes he was charged with were committed in Judea, particularly that of profaning the temple.

And when he understood that he was of Cilicia; which was a Roman province, in which Tarsus was, where Paul was born free; Act_21:39.

JAMISO�, "asked of what province he was— the letter describing him as a Roman citizen.

Page 141: Acts 23 commentary

COFFMA�, "What province ... ? This was a pertinent question to determine if Paul

really came under his authority; finding he had no worry on that point, he

postponed any action until he could devise some manner of turning the situation to

his own profit.

In Herod's palace ... Vicious criminals would not have been kept in such a palace,

and therefore it may be inferred that Paul was honorably treated and given the best

accommodations available for a man under detention. This was to be Paul's home

for two whole years, during which Luke would canvass the cities and villages of

Galilee Judaea, Samaria, etc., preparatory to writing the Gospel of Luke. Perhaps in

that work of the incomparable Luke, one may read the purpose of that strange

providence which left the greatest of apostles to suffer frustration and delay under

the lock and key of Felix. For the benign character of Paul's imprisonment in

Herod's palace, however, one may be grateful and thankful to the Lord.

ELLICOTT, "(34) He asked of what province he was.—The question was a natural

one for a procurator of Judæa to ask as to any prisoner brought before him. (Comp.

Pilate’s question in Luke 23:6.) It does not appear why Felix was ready to take

cognisance of a matter which apparently, to judge by the precedent set by Pilate,

belonged to the jurisdiction of another. Perhaps he had no motive for conciliating

the favour of the governor of Cilicia, or thought that the nature of the accusation

over-ruled the nationality of the accused.

CO�STABLE 34-35, "Felix inquired concerning Paul's home province for the

following reason. If Paul had come from an area in the empire that had its own

ruler in addition to a Roman governor, that local authority had a right to witness

the proceedings (cf. Luke 23:6-12). Cilicia was not such a place, however, so Felix

could deal with Paul himself. He needed to hear the testimony of Paul's accusers, of

course. Consequently Felix kept Paul in the governor's palace, the Praetorium,

which Herod the Great had built, until those Jews arrived and he could conduct a

hearing. The governor's palace had cells for prisoners. Paul would have been fairly

comfortable there since he was a Roman citizen who had not even been charged

formally with a crime.

PETT, "‘And when he had read it, he asked of what province he was. And when he

understood that he was of Cilicia, he said, “I will hear you fully when your accusers

also are come.” And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s palace.’

Felix then had Paul brought in and asked him what province he came from. Had he

named the province of a local king he would have sent him to him. But once he

learned that he was from Cilicia he recognised that he must deal with it himself.

Syria and Cilicia were under the same legate and he was his deputy. So he informed

Paul that he would hear the case as soon as his accusers arrived. Then he gave

orders that he be detained in Herod’s palace, his own headquarters. Paul was being

given due respect as a Roman citizen.

Page 142: Acts 23 commentary

35 he said, “I will hear your case when your

accusers get here.” Then he ordered that Paul be

kept under guard in Herod’s palace.

BAR�ES, "In Herod’s judgment hall - Greek: in the praetorium of Herod. The word used here denoted formerly “the tent of the Roman praetor”; and since that was the place where justice was administered, it came to be applied to “halls (courts) of justice.” This had been raised probably by Herod the Great as his palace, or as a place for administering justice. It is probable, also, that prisons, or places of security, would be attached to such places.

CLARKE,"I will hear thee - ∆ιακουσοµαι�σου; I will give thee a fair, full, and attentive hearing when thy accusers are come; in whose presence thou shalt be permitted to defend thyself.

In Herod’s judgment - hall - Εν�τM�πραιτωριM, In Herod’s praetorium, so called because it was built by Herod the Great. The praetorium was the place where the Roman praetor had his residence; and it is probable that, in or near this place, there was a sort of guard room, where state prisoners were kept. Paul was lodged here till his accusers should arrive.

On the preceeding chapter many useful observations may be made.

1. Paul, while acting contrary to the Gospel of Christ, pleaded conscience as his guide. Conscience is generally allowed to be the rule of human actions; but it cannot be a right rule, unless it be well informed. While it is unenlightened it may be a guide to the perdition of its professor, and the cause of the ruin of others. That conscience can alone be trusted in which the light of God’s Spirit and God’s truth dwells. An ill-informed conscience may burn even the saints for God’s sake!

2. No circumstance in which a man can be placed can excuse him from showing respect and reverence to the authorities which God, in the course of his providence, has instituted for the benefit of civil or religious society. All such authorities come originally from God, and can never lose any of their rights on account of the persons who are invested with them. An evil can never be of use, and a good may be abused; but it loses not its character, essential qualities, or usefulness, because of this abuse.

3. Paul availed himself of the discordant sentiments of his judges, who had agreed to show him no justice, that he might rid himself out of their hands. To take advantage of the sentiments and dispositions of an audience, without deceiving it, and to raise dissension between the enemies of the truth, is an impotent artifice, when truth itself is not violated and when error is exposed thereby to public view.

Page 143: Acts 23 commentary

4. The Pharisees and Sadducees strove together. God frequently raises up defenders of the principles of truth, even among those who, in practice, are its decided enemies. “Though,” says one, “I do not like the truth, yet will I defend it.” A man clothed with sovereign authority, vicious in his heart, and immoral in his life, fostered those principles of truth and righteousness by which error was banished from these lands, and pure and undefiled religion established among us for many generations.

5. The providence of God, and his management of the world, are in many respects great mysteries; but, as far as we are individually concerned, all is plain. Paul had the fullest assurance, from the mouth of Christ himself, that he should see Rome; and, consequently, that he should be extricated from all his present difficulties. Why then did he not quietly sit still, when his nephew informed him that forty men had conspired to murder him? Because he knew that God made use of the prudence with which he has endowed man as an agent in that very providence by which he is supported; and that to neglect the natural means of safety with which God provides us is to tempt and dishonor him, and induce him in judgment to use those means against us, which, in his mercy, he had designed for our comfort and salvation. Prudence is well associated even with an apostolical spirit. Every being that God has formed, he designs should accomplish those functions for which he has endowed it with the requisite powers.

6. Claudius Lysias sent Paul to Felix. “In the generality of human events,” says one, “we do not often distinguish the designs of God from those of men. The design of Lysias, in preserving Paul from the rage of the Jews, was to render his own conduct free from exception: the design of God was, that he might bring Paul safely to Rome, that he might attack idolatry in its strongest fort, and there establish the Christian faith.” God governs the world, and works by proper means; and counterworks evil or sinister devices, so as ultimately to accomplish the purposes of his will, and cause all things to work together for good to them that love Him.

7. Felix acted prudently when he would not even hear St. Paul till he had his accusers face to face. How many false judgments, evil surmises, and uncharitable censures would be avoided, did men always adopt this reasonable plan! Hear either side of a complaint separately, and the evil seems very great: hear both together, and the evil is generally lessened by one half. Audi et alteram partem - hear the other side, says a heathen: remember, if you have an ear for the first complainant, you have one also for the second.

GILL, "I will hear thee, said he,.... The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, "we will hear", which is a grand courtly way of speaking:

when thine accusers are come; which Lysias, in his letter, informed him that he had ordered them to come; which shows the governor to have some sense of justice and integrity, being desirous to hear both sides before he judged of the affair, though there was so much said in the chief captain's letter in favour of Paul's innocence, and against his enemies.

And he commanded him to be kept in Herod's judgment hall; or palace: this was a place built by Herod the great at Caesarea, of whose magnificent buildings here

Page 144: Acts 23 commentary

Josephus gives a large account. For besides the famous haven or port which he made here, he adorned the place with splendid palaces, he built a theatre, and an amphitheatre, and a "forum" (h), which was either a market place, or a court of judicature; and if the latter, perhaps the same that is here meant, in a part of which, or in a place adjoining to it, the apostle was put. Here he was kept by a guard of soldiers, but not in close confinement; he had much liberty, and his friends and acquaintance had

leave to come to him; see Act_24:23. We read (i) of דיטי�של�קיסרין, which some interpret "the chamber of the judges of Caesarea"; or the place where they sat in judgment, and may be the same that is here meant; though others interpret it a prison; and so it seems was this judgment hall of Herod's.

JAMISO�, "I will hear thee— The word means, “give thee a full hearing.”

to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall— “praetorium,” the palace built at Caesarea by Herod, and now occupied by the Roman procurators; in one of the buildings attached to which Paul was ordered to be kept.

ELLICOTT, "(35) I will hear thee.—The Greek verb expresses the idea of a

thorough hearing.

He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall.—The Greek word is

prætorium, a word somewhat elastic in its application, and ranging from a palace to

a barrack. “Judgment hall” hardly gives the meaning here. The building had

probably been intended by Herod for use as a royal residence, and was now used by

the Roman procurator for himself and his troops. The Apostle had there a second

experience of the life of a prætorium. At Rome he does not appear to have been in

the prætorium, though the circumstances of his imprisonment brought him into

contact with the soldiers who were quartered there. (Comp. �otes on Matthew

27:27; Philippians 1:13.)

HAWKER, "REFLECTIONS

I would summon my own heart, while I call upon the Reader’s also, in the review of Paul’s appeal before the council, to solemnly enquire whether we have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day? It is an important question, and not hastily and presumptuously to be answered. We are such partial judge s of evil thoughts, when that judgment respects ourselves, that self-love too often gives a bias to the opinion. But, when we come to be weighed in the balance of unerring truth, not according to our view of things, but according to God’s righteous judgment, the question then becomes solemn indeed, how is the Lord sanctified in the soul? Reader! doth it not strike you, (I bless the Lord it doth me,) that it is well for poor fallen sinful creatures, we have a better righteousness than our own to trust in, and to plead before God, under all the misgivings of conscience, and under all the accusations of sin and Satan!

Let not the Reader overlook (I pray the Lord I may not) the Lord’s watchful care over his servant, amidst the host of foes with which he was surrounded. Beautiful is that scripture, and here it was fully proved, The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation. Paul had no knowledge, but the Lord had, how he should escape, when both Jew and Gentile seized upon his person. It would be very blessed for me, if I always had

Page 145: Acts 23 commentary

this in remembrance. There are numberless anxieties I crowd into life for want of recollecting, that these things are my Lord’s concern, and not mine. Jesus hath said by his servant, casting all your care upon him, for he careth for you. I know this in theory as well as words can make it. And frequently under this authority I do cast all my care upon the Lord, and bring the whole to his throne of grace. But soon after, yea, sometimes in a few moments after, I discover that I must have fetched them all away again, and taken them up, for they are all upon me. Oh! thou dear Lord! is it thus I learn my unworthiness and faithlessness to know more thy grace and all-sufficiency?