And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God's high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks. The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”
Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth - "Ananias (high priest about A.D. 48-58) was reportedly insolent and overbearing. He was probably angered at Paul's bold claims and ordered him struck." (Ryrie)
"Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, high priest A.D. 47-59. He received his appointment through Herod of Chalcis. On account of acts of violence against the Samaritans during his term of office, he was summoned to Rome for inquiry, but was acquitted through the influence of the younger Agrippa. Josephus (Antiq. 20.9.2) describes his avariciousness and acts of robbery and violence. He seems to have been deposed towards the end of Felix's tenure of office as procurator. His treatment of St. Paul agrees with what we otherwise know of him. He met with a violent death at the hands of the 'Sicarii', some years after his deposition from office, in A.D. 66 (Josephus. Wars IJ.17.9)." (Walker)
whitewashed wall - hypocrite
I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest - "Some think Paul's weak eyes caused him to fail to recognize the high priest; however, the remark may have been sarcasm — 'I didn't think the high priest would ever speak like that!'" (Ryrie)
"The apostle's answer to those who upbraided him for rebuking the high priest, has been understood by some as sarcasm. How, they ask, could Paul have failed to recognize the president of the Sanhedrin? He must, therefore, have meant: 'I did not know that one who would do this could possibly be the high priest.' We do not accept this interpretation, however. Apart from a consideration of the exact wording in the original here, it is doubtful that Paul's words could have been intended as a sarcastic rebuttal. In the first place, it would not be like Paul to 'speak evil of dignitaries.' Second, Israel's high priests, at this time of her history, were appointed with gross irregularity, partly due to national apostasy from God's commands and partly to Rome's intrusion, so that one illegitimate high priest after another held office and the council was even presided over, at time, by substitute 'high priests.' Under these circumstance — and Paul having been in Jerusalem but a few days — it is quite understandable that he would not recognize the high priest ... Had the apostle known that it was the high priest who had ordered him smitten he would have refrained from rebuking him in view of the command in Ex. 22:28. But having done so he merely explained how this had come about and retracted neither his rebuke nor his prediction. The more shame that the high priest should be guilty of so brazenly violating the basic rules of justice." (Stam)
v 6 - "In effect Paul said, 'I, a Pharisee by inheritance and training, can hardly be regarded as a subversive teach!' He then proceeded to split the Sanhedrin into its two factions by mentioning the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied but the Pharisees believed." (Ryrie)
"Paul knew too that there was a deep doctrinal division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and, taking advantage of the situation, he cried out: 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (some of the best MSS have 'Pharisees,' making him the off-spring of a line of Pharisees); of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question' (Ver. 6) thus directing the jurors' attention to a subject on which he knew the Pharisees would be on his side. This maneuver had an instantaneous effect. Almost immediately 'there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees' and 'the multitude was divided' and 'there arose a great cry;and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose and strove' for the apostle's acquittal, till the 'dissension' was so 'great' that the chief captain became concerned 'lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them' and sent his soldiers down to take him from them by force. Thus Paul was brought again under the jurisdiction — and protection — of the Roman government." (Stam)
"The circumcision apostles and the multitudes of Jewish believers at Jerusalem had for years believed and proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, yet the unbelieving Jews, even now, tolerated them. Why this great outcry against Paul? Ah, it was because he had, by revelation, preached the resurrection of 'the Seed of David' in a new light as the basis for a proclamation of freedom from the law and salvation by grace to Jew and Gentile alike (See 2 Tim. 2:7-9; Rom. 4:22-25; 10:9, etc.). This was what they so bitterly opposed." (Stam)
the Lord stood by him - "Christ appeared to Paul four times: at his conversion (Acts 9:5), in Corinth (Acts 18:9-10), on his first visit to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17-18), and here during his last visit to Jerusalem." (Ryrie)
"... 'the Lord stood by him.' How beautiful! It does not appear that any of his companions were with him nor, evidently, did the church at Jerusalem or its leaders do anything to help him. He was alone." (Stam)
Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth - "Ananias (high priest about A.D. 48-58) was reportedly insolent and overbearing. He was probably angered at Paul's bold claims and ordered him struck." (Ryrie)
"Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, high priest A.D. 47-59. He received his appointment through Herod of Chalcis. On account of acts of violence against the Samaritans during his term of office, he was summoned to Rome for inquiry, but was acquitted through the influence of the younger Agrippa. Josephus (Antiq. 20.9.2) describes his avariciousness and acts of robbery and violence. He seems to have been deposed towards the end of Felix's tenure of office as procurator. His treatment of St. Paul agrees with what we otherwise know of him. He met with a violent death at the hands of the 'Sicarii', some years after his deposition from office, in A.D. 66 (Josephus. Wars IJ.17.9)." (Walker)
whitewashed wall - hypocrite
I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest - "Some think Paul's weak eyes caused him to fail to recognize the high priest; however, the remark may have been sarcasm — 'I didn't think the high priest would ever speak like that!'" (Ryrie)
"The apostle's answer to those who upbraided him for rebuking the high priest, has been understood by some as sarcasm. How, they ask, could Paul have failed to recognize the president of the Sanhedrin? He must, therefore, have meant: 'I did not know that one who would do this could possibly be the high priest.' We do not accept this interpretation, however. Apart from a consideration of the exact wording in the original here, it is doubtful that Paul's words could have been intended as a sarcastic rebuttal. In the first place, it would not be like Paul to 'speak evil of dignitaries.' Second, Israel's high priests, at this time of her history, were appointed with gross irregularity, partly due to national apostasy from God's commands and partly to Rome's intrusion, so that one illegitimate high priest after another held office and the council was even presided over, at time, by substitute 'high priests.' Under these circumstance — and Paul having been in Jerusalem but a few days — it is quite understandable that he would not recognize the high priest ... Had the apostle known that it was the high priest who had ordered him smitten he would have refrained from rebuking him in view of the command in Ex. 22:28. But having done so he merely explained how this had come about and retracted neither his rebuke nor his prediction. The more shame that the high priest should be guilty of so brazenly violating the basic rules of justice." (Stam)
v 6 - "In effect Paul said, 'I, a Pharisee by inheritance and training, can hardly be regarded as a subversive teach!' He then proceeded to split the Sanhedrin into its two factions by mentioning the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied but the Pharisees believed." (Ryrie)
"Paul knew too that there was a deep doctrinal division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and, taking advantage of the situation, he cried out: 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (some of the best MSS have 'Pharisees,' making him the off-spring of a line of Pharisees); of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question' (Ver. 6) thus directing the jurors' attention to a subject on which he knew the Pharisees would be on his side. This maneuver had an instantaneous effect. Almost immediately 'there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees' and 'the multitude was divided' and 'there arose a great cry;and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose and strove' for the apostle's acquittal, till the 'dissension' was so 'great' that the chief captain became concerned 'lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them' and sent his soldiers down to take him from them by force. Thus Paul was brought again under the jurisdiction — and protection — of the Roman government." (Stam)
"The circumcision apostles and the multitudes of Jewish believers at Jerusalem had for years believed and proclaimed the resurrection of Christ, yet the unbelieving Jews, even now, tolerated them. Why this great outcry against Paul? Ah, it was because he had, by revelation, preached the resurrection of 'the Seed of David' in a new light as the basis for a proclamation of freedom from the law and salvation by grace to Jew and Gentile alike (See 2 Tim. 2:7-9; Rom. 4:22-25; 10:9, etc.). This was what they so bitterly opposed." (Stam)
the Lord stood by him - "Christ appeared to Paul four times: at his conversion (Acts 9:5), in Corinth (Acts 18:9-10), on his first visit to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17-18), and here during his last visit to Jerusalem." (Ryrie)
"... 'the Lord stood by him.' How beautiful! It does not appear that any of his companions were with him nor, evidently, did the church at Jerusalem or its leaders do anything to help him. He was alone." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment