rwp - Acts:22:30-23:11

rwp@Acts:22:30 @{To know the certainty} (\gnnai to asphales\). Same idiom in strkjv@21:34| which see. {Wherefore he was accused} (\to ti kategoreitai\). Epexegetical after to \asphales\. Note article (accusative case) with the indirect question here as in strkjv@Luke:22:1,23,24| (which see), a neat idiom in the Greek. {Commanded} (\ekeleusen\). Songs:the Sanhedrin had to meet, but in the Tower of Antonia, for he brought Paul down (\katagagn\, second aorist active participle of \katag\). {Set him} (\estsen\). First aorist active (transitive) indicative of \histmi\, not the intransitive second aorist \est\. Lysias is determined to find out the truth about Paul, more puzzled than ever by the important discovery that he has a Roman citizen on his hands in this strange prisoner.

rwp@Acts:23:1 @{Looking steadfastly} (\atenisas\). See on this word strkjv@1:10; strkjv@3:12; strkjv@6:15; strkjv@7:55; strkjv@13:9|. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged. {I have lived before God} (\pepoliteumai ti thei\). Perfect middle indicative of \politeu\, old verb to manage affairs of city (\polis\) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Phillipians:1:27|. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God (\thei\) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God. {In all good conscience unto this day} (\pasi suneidsei agathi achri tauts ts hmeras\). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Timothy:1:13-16|). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word \suneidsis\ is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (_conscientia_) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from \sunoida\, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Hebrews:10:2|), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Romans:2:15|) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Corinthians:8:7,10; strkjv@1Peter:2:19|). The conscience can be contaminated (Hebrews:10:22|, evil \ponrs\). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Timothy:1:13-16|). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Peter:3:16|). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in strkjv@John:8:9| (the interpolation strkjv@7:53-8:11|).

rwp@Acts:23:2 @{Ananias} (\Hananias\). Not the one in strkjv@Luke:3:2; strkjv@John:18:13; strkjv@Acts:4:7|, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted" (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character. {Them that stood by him} (\tois parestsin auti\). Dative case of second perfect participle of \paristmi\, to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4| (\paresttes\). {To smite him on the mouth} (\tuptein autou to stoma\). See on ¯12:45; strkjv@18:17|. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (John:18:22|). Ananias was provoked by Paul's self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew" (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Luke:6:29| where \tupt\ is also used).

rwp@Acts:23:3 @{Thou whited wall} (\toiche kekoniamene\). Perfect passive participle of \konia\ (from \konia\, dust or lime). The same word used in strkjv@Matthew:23:27| for "whited sepulchres" (\taphoi kekoniamenoi\) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word \tuptein\ (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (\tuptein se mellei ho theos\) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. {And sittest thou to judge me?} (\Kai su kathi krinn me?\) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (\kathi\, second person singular middle of \kathmai\, late form for \kathsai\, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. strkjv@Luke:22:30|. \Kai su\ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law} (\paranomn\). Present active participle of \paranome\, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

rwp@Acts:23:4 @{Of God} (\tou theou\). As God's representative in spite of his bad character (Deuteronomy:17:8f.|). Here was a charge of irreverence, to say the least. The office called for respect.

rwp@Acts:23:5 @{I wist not} (\ouk idein\). Second past perfect of \oida\ used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from strkjv@Exodus:22:18| (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Peter:2:23|) when smitten on the cheek (John:18:22|), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.

rwp@Acts:23:6 @{But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of \ginsk\). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." Songs:Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes strkjv@24:21| as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee. {I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees} (\Eg Pharisaios eimi huios Pharisain\). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phillipians:3:5|). {Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question} (\peri elpidos kai anastases nekrn krinomai\). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in strkjv@24:21|. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Acts:5:34-39|). Songs:then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in strkjv@Galatians:3; strkjv@Romans:9-11|.

rwp@Acts:23:7 @{When he had so said} (\touto autou lalountos\). Genitive absolute of present participle (Westcott and Hort) rather than aorist (\eipontos\). While he was saying this. {A dissension} (\stasis\). This old word for standing or station (Hebrews:9:8|) from \histmi\, to place, we have seen already to mean insurrection (Acts:19:40| which see). Here it is strife as in strkjv@15:2|. {Was divided} (\eschisth\). See on ¯14:4|.

rwp@Acts:23:8 @{There is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit} (\m einai anastasin mte aggelon mte pneuma\). Infinitive with negative \m\ in indirect assertion. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. {Both} (\amphotera\). Here used though three items of belief are mentioned as in strkjv@19:16| where the seven sons of Sceva are thus described. This idiom is common enough in papyri and Byzantine Greek (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 745).

rwp@Acts:23:9 @{Strove} (\diemachonto\). Imperfect middle of \diamachomai\, old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul's side. {And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel?} (\ei de pneuma elalsen auti aggelos?\). This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in strkjv@Luke:13:9; strkjv@John:6:62| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1203). See one also in strkjv@Exodus:32:32|.

rwp@Acts:23:10 @{When there arose a great dissension} (\polls ts ginomens stases\). Present middle participle (genitive absolute). Literally, "dissension becoming much." {Lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them} (\m diaspasthi ho Paulos\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \diaspa\, to draw in two, to tear in pieces, old verb, in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:5:4| of tearing chains in two. The subjunctive with \m\ is the common construction after a verb of fearing (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 995). {The soldiers} (\to strateuma\). The army, the band of soldiers and so in verse 27|. {To go down} (\kataban\). Second aorist active participle of \katabain\, having gone down. {Take him by force} (\harpasai\). To seize. The soldiers were to seize and save Paul from the midst of (\ek mesou\) the rabbis or preachers (in their rage to get at each other). Paul was more of a puzzle to Lysias now than ever.

rwp@Acts:23:11 @{The night following} (\ti epiousi nukti\). Locative case, on the next (following) night. {The Lord} (\ho kurios\). Jesus. Paul never needed Jesus more than now. On a previous occasion the whole church prayed for Peter's release (12:5|), but Paul clearly had no such grip on the church as that, though he had been kindly welcomed (21:18|). In every crisis Jesus appears to him (cf. strkjv@Acts:18:9|). It looked dark for Paul till Jesus spoke. Once before in Jerusalem Jesus spoke words of cheer (22:18|). Then he was told to leave Jerusalem. Now he is to have "cheer" or "courage" (\tharsei\). Jesus used this very word to others (Matthew:9:2,22; strkjv@Mark:10:49|). It is a brave word. {Thou hast testified} (\diemartur\). First aorist middle indicative second person singular of \diamarturomai\, strong word (see on ¯22:18|). {Must thou} (\se dei\). That is the needed word and on this Paul leans. His hopes (19:21|) of going to Rome will not be in vain. He can bide Christ's time now. And Jesus has approved his witness in Jerusalem.