And Paul, fixing his eyes on the council, said, Brethren, I have walked in all good conscience with God unto this day.
Paul stands before the highest court of his own nation. A Roman officer has called it together in haste, and Paul opens with a claim to have lived before God with a clear conscience. Commentators differ on whether this was the right thing to say.
This was no normal session of the Jewish high court. That helps explain a puzzle later in the chapter: Paul did not know the high priest stood in front of him.
We can hardly suppose this was a regular assembly of the Sanhedrin. It was done hurriedly to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority to assemble the religious leaders of the Jews in this way. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. If he had worn his official robes, that would be hard to explain, since Paul looked straight at the council. If it was an informal meeting, neither the high priest nor anyone else may have worn distinctive clothing.
Paul fixed his eyes on his judges before he spoke. His look matched his words.
His unflinching look was fixed on his judges as he said this, confirming his bold words. There was no accusing voice within, from which he would seek escape, which he had to silence. He did not come as a criminal to throw himself on their mercy, but as one pledged to the truth, to maintain it.
"All good conscience" is not a claim to a pure heart. It is a claim about how he lived, before and after his conversion.
While he was in Judaism he maintained a good conscience and did not permit himself any known violations of the law, being even then "as to righteousness under the law, blameless." But this says nothing about the state of his heart when he was a Jew. He only insists that he kept an upright, conscientious course, until the light flashed into his soul on the road to Damascus. The same marked his service after conversion as an apostle.
The same conscience that Paul kept clean had once approved his persecution of Christians. So a conscience is only as reliable as the light it has.
A "good" conscience is gained and kept as we sincerely and strictly carry out all that conscience directs. The zealot with an unenlightened or twisted conscience does the most outrageous things to keep his "good" conscience. That is how Paul had acted in his unconverted days. Since his conversion he had sincerely observed the warnings of his conscience, now enlightened and put right. How clearly this shows us that conscience is of itself no safe guide: it must be enlightened by the Word of God.
Commentators differ on how to judge Paul here. One writer notes what is missing from Paul's words.
The apostle's testimony was that he had lived before God in all good conscience to this day: not a word about Christ or the gospel. It was thoroughly true... He was thinking of the Jews, and he declared what seemed thoroughly calculated to meet their thoughts. But it utterly failed.
Another writer sees real dignity in Paul's words, but not testimony.
Paul addresses the council with the gravity and dignity of an upright man used to walking with God. It is not a testimony borne to them for their good, but the appeal of a good conscience to their consciences, if they had any... Paul makes a much better appearance than his judges. They thoroughly disgrace themselves and show their dreadful condition. But he does not appear for God before them.
A clear conscience does not stop suffering. It changes how a man bears it.
A man may have a good cause and a bad conscience. Paul had a just cause, and he also had a pure conscience... A good conscience will make a man suffer with comfort.
- Conscience kept. Paul could look his judges in the eye. No voice inside him was accusing him. He came to maintain the truth, not to beg for mercy.
- Conscience defined. He claimed an upright course of life, before and after his conversion. He never claimed a pure heart.
- Conscience trained. The man who once persecuted Christians did it with a clear conscience. So conscience is no safe guide until the Word of God enlightens it.
- Conscience is not testimony. Commentators differ on Paul's tone. They agree on what is missing: no word about Christ or the gospel. It was an appeal to their consciences, not a testimony for their good.
- Conscience rewarded. A man may have a good cause and a bad conscience. A good conscience lets him suffer with comfort.
But the high priest Ananias ordered those standing by him to smite his mouth.
A military commander has hurried Paul before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, with no charge yet laid against him. He gets one sentence out — a claim to a clear conscience — and the man presiding orders him hit in the mouth.
Paul's opening line was true. One commentator notes what it left out, and how it failed.
The apostle's testimony was that he had lived before God in all good conscience to that day. Not a word about Christ or the gospel. It was thoroughly true. He was thinking of the Jews. He said what seemed exactly calculated to meet their thoughts. But it utterly failed, and the high priest Ananias commanded those standing by to strike him on the mouth. This was an injurious insult, committed by the judge himself, in direct defiance of the law.
Another writer puts the same point as a matter of posture: Paul was defending himself rather than testifying.
No doubt this was true, but he was on the defensive rather than bearing witness to the Lord Jesus.
This was more than rudeness. The judge broke the law in the very act of enforcing it.
Angry at this opening statement, the high priest ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. That broke the law. The law said an offender should only be beaten after a proper trial, and then only in a proper way (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).
Ananias came to the office by royal appointment, and he did not die in peace.
He was the high priest before whom Paul appeared, and he commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. To him Paul said, "God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall." Acts 23:2-3; Acts 24:1. Herod king of Chalcis raised him to the office in A.D. 48. He was sent to Rome to answer a charge of oppression, but returned. He was deposed before Felix left the province. When Menahem besieged Jerusalem, Ananias took refuge in an aqueduct. The assassins dragged him out and killed him with their daggers.
Why hit a prisoner for claiming a clear conscience? One writer sees the blow as the only answer the high priest had.
It was the only answer he could give. Perhaps it showed the sting of his own conscience. The apostle embodied that conscience for him then, and he was used to treating it only as an enemy.
Paul later says he did not know the man was high priest — odd, since he had been staring straight at the council. The setting explains it.
We can hardly suppose that this was a regular gathering of the Sanhedrin. It came together in a hurry to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority to assemble the religious leaders of the Jews like this. This may help explain what would otherwise seem barely intelligible. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. If he had been in his official robes, this would be hard to understand. We are told, after all, that Paul looked steadily at the council. If it was an informal meeting, neither the high priest nor anyone else may have worn distinctive clothing. Ananias is quite different from Annas, the high priest of the earlier days the Gospels describe. He had not been appointed so long before that Paul must have remembered him. He may have been a comparative stranger to the apostle, especially in his official role.
Commentators differ on how to judge Paul's response. One writer traces it to self-justification rather than witness.
This was violence, without doubt. Yet what produced it was not testimony borne to Christ, but self-justification. Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." The man had deserved it, true. But such an answer did not display the meekness of Christ.
Others urge restraint before criticising a man in that position.
The situation was unusual, and his circumstances were trying. He was there with no charge brought against him to which he was to plead. No wonder the apostle's sense of the injustice stirred him up. But before we pass criticism on him, let us be sure that we should have acted better ourselves.
- Conscience. Paul opens with his own clear record, not with Christ — a true word, but a defence rather than a testimony.
- Blow. Having no answer, the high priest supplies a fist; the violence exposes the sting in his own conscience.
- Lawlessness. The man seated to judge by the law breaks it in the same breath, striking a prisoner before any trial.
- Ignorance. The sitting was hurried and irregular. With no robes to mark the high priest out, Paul did not know who had spoken.
- Measure. Commentators differ. Some find Paul's reply short of Christ's meekness. Others ask whether we would have done better under the same blow.
Then Paul said to him, God will smite thee, whited wall. And *thou*, dost thou sit judging me according to the law, and breaking the law commandest me to be smitten?
Paul stands before the Jewish council. The high priest orders him struck on the mouth. The reply Paul fires back has divided readers ever since. Was it a prophet's verdict, a righteous man's flash of anger, or both?
The scene is not a trial that went wrong; it is a trial that never began. No one had named a charge before the high priest ordered the blow. Paul's question exposes the contradiction in the court.
Neither the high priest nor the council had anything to say about a concrete accusation against him. But the high priest commanded others to strike Paul on the mouth. This was so plainly unjust that Paul did not hold himself back. He spoke rashly, calling the high priest a whitewashed wall and telling him that God would strike him. Otherwise his words were most telling: "Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?"
The insult is not random abuse. It points back to a word of the Lord, and it names Ananias a hypocrite.
But the apostle resented the insult and gave it a sharp rebuke. "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!" In every respect this was true. Ananias was no more than a hypocritical evildoer. Our Lord had made an allusion in Matthew 23:27 which will help us to understand this; and it appears that God did strike the hypocrite not long after.
One writer reads the words as a formal announcement, not a curse. Paul steps out of the accused's place and into the judge's.
This is not a curse, as is plain. It is God's announcement of judgment. It came true when the troubles broke out that began the last Jewish war. Here Paul is moved out of the place of the accused altogether, into the place of judge. He was not one to take so solemn a place without realizing what he was doing.
Ananias did not stay in office, and his end matched the sentence Paul spoke.
He lost his office soon after this, and he ended his life in a shameful way. The assassins called the Sicarii killed him. They dragged him out of an aqueduct in the grounds of Herod's palace in Jerusalem, where he had fled for safety. It is said that no more worthless person ever filled the office of high priest. How low had Judaism sunk! Paul's words came true in the terrible end of that arrogant man.
Commentators differ over how much of this to defend. One writer holds that the words were true but the spirit was not. He traces the trouble back to the self-defence that provoked the blow.
This was violence, without doubt. But what provoked it was not testimony to Christ; it was self-justification. Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." Ananias had deserved it, it is true. But such an answer did not show the meekness of Christ.
F. W. Grant weighs the same words differently. He holds that the judgment Paul spoke came from the Spirit, and that anger at evil is not always sin.
The Spirit was surely in the judgment pronounced. Paul's indignation had so much reason behind it that one hesitates to say whether he went too far. Paul himself wrote at another time, "Be angry and do not sin," and there is a necessary anger at evil which is sinless.
What happens next matters as much as the outburst. Challenged for insulting the high priest, Paul does not defend himself. He quotes Scripture against his own words.
Even the blessed apostle failed there. His impulsiveness got the better of him... Grace, however, showed itself in the apostle at once. When they said, "Would you revile God's high priest?" he 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.'" He bowed to the word at once.
A record in Scripture is not always God's approval of what it records.
So again, take the words of the Apostle Paul to Ananias, calling him a "whitewashed wall." They could not have been pleasing to God. Yet they form part of the inspired history of the Acts of the Apostles.
- Provocation. The judge sat under the law and broke it. The injustice came from the bench itself.
- Word. "Whitewashed wall" picks up a word of the Lord and names Ananias a hypocrite. The charge was true.
- Sentence. Read as an announcement rather than a curse, it landed: the man died at the hands of assassins.
- Spirit. Commentators differ. One finds true words without the meekness of Christ; another finds the Spirit in the judgment Paul pronounced.
- Recovery. Paul turns Scripture on himself and yields at once. The record of a servant's failure is still part of the inspired history.
And those that stood by said, Dost thou rail against the high priest of God?
The bystanders do not defend Ananias the man — they defend his title. Their protest raises two hard questions: how much honour does a corrupt official still hold, and was Paul wrong to speak as he did?
The bystanders call Ananias "God's high priest." Writers question whether the title was really his, and point to what Paul honoured instead.
They challenged him for speaking as he did to "God's high priest." So he had to withdraw his words. He said he had not known the man was high priest, for the law had said, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." You could hardly say in honesty that Ananias was God's high priest, since the Romans had appointed him. Yet Paul recognized his place of rule.
Who Ananias was tells against the title. His story ends badly.
He lost his office soon after this, and died in disgrace. The Sicarii, a band of assassins, dragged him out of an aqueduct in the gardens of Herod's palace in Jerusalem, where he had fled for safety, and killed him. No more worthless man, it is said, ever filled the office of high priest. How low had Judaism sunk! Paul's words came terribly true in the end of that arrogant man: "God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall." At the same time, the apostle's regard for the office is also on record. As high priest there was a respect due to him, which his personal character could never have claimed.
Commentators differ on how to read Paul's plea of ignorance. Some give a practical reason for it.
Clearly the high priest was not dressed in a way that would make him recognisable. So Paul excuses himself by his ignorance of the fact, and quotes the law's formal ban: "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."
Others read the same words as an admission that something had gone wrong in the apostle himself.
Paul replies with an insult, calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall." He had deserved it, that is true. But such an answer did not display the meekness of Christ. When he is corrected, Paul owns his fault. His defence, though, shows the absence of the power and the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. "I did not know" is not what the Holy Spirit would say.
One writer weighs both sides. Paul was right, but being right is not the whole standard.
As high priest he was sitting to judge Paul by the law. There, against the law, he ordered him to be struck. But did Paul's quick rebuke rise to the height of grace, any more than of truth? The apostle is fully righteous, yet he comes down to the same ground they stood on. He had spoken with heat, true though his words were, so that the bystanders could say, "Would you revile God's high priest?"… Still Ananias was high priest that day. Paul owns this. He should not have spoken that way of a man in that position.
Another writer sets Paul's reply beside his Master's.
Angry at this opening statement, the high priest ordered that Paul be struck on the mouth. That broke the law, which said an offender should only be beaten after a proper trial, and then only in a proper way (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). This clear injustice moved Paul to a sharp retort — very fitting, yet not allowable when addressed to the high priest… He could not ask with full assurance, "Which one of you convicts me of sin?" as his Lord had done.
What saves the moment is how fast Paul backs down.
There was only One who was the fine flour of the grain offering. The greater the pressure, the more it shows the perfection of the fine flour. Even the blessed apostle failed there; his impulsiveness came to the top… Grace, however, showed itself in the apostle at once. When they said, "Would you revile God's high priest?" he said, "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest." He bowed to the word at once.
- Provocation. Ananias broke the very law he sat to administer: he had Paul struck before anyone heard a charge.
- Retort. Paul's words were true — the man was worthless, and his end proved it — but truth spoken in heat is not yet grace.
- Title. The bystanders appeal to an office the Romans had given him. Paul answers by honouring the place of rule, not by defending himself.
- Contrast. Christ could ask who could convict Him of sin. His most devoted servant could not.
- Recovery. The mark of a godly man here is not that he never slipped. One line of Scripture was enough to make him take back his words on the spot.
And Paul said, I was not conscious, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evilly of the ruler of thy people.
At a hurried hearing before the Jewish council, Paul is struck on the mouth and calls the high priest a whitewashed wall. Then he learns who the man is — so how did Paul miss it, and why does one line of law settle everything?
Writers explain the ignorance in different ways. One points to the meeting itself. A Roman commander had summoned the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, without the right to do so:
We can hardly suppose that this was a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin. It came together in a hurry to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority to assemble the religious chiefs of the Jews like this. This may help explain something that would otherwise be hard to understand. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. If he had been wearing his official robes, this would be hard to understand. Paul, we are told, looked straight at the council. If the meeting was informal, the high priest and everyone else may have worn no special dress.
Another points to Paul's eyesight:
Many think Paul had poor eyesight. That is why he did not recognise the high priest, even at a short distance.
Paul does not defend the sharpness of what he said. One writer marks both the failure and the recovery:
Was Paul acting on the principle of not resisting evil when he said, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall"? ... Even the blessed apostle failed there; his impulsive nature came out... Grace, however, showed itself in the apostle at once. When they said, "Would you revile God's high priest?" he answered: "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest." His reason was Scripture: "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people." He bowed to the word at once.
Another writer sees the same submission to Scripture in Christ Himself:
What does Scripture itself say? It shows us our Lord Jesus Christ as fully governed by the statements of Scripture, and Paul in the same way.
Paul's apology is not a compliment to Ananias. Notice which words of the law he chooses:
In this case Paul did not know that the "whitewashed wall" — the painted hypocrite he was speaking to — was the high priest. He apologises when he learns the fact. Yet with the text he quotes, he puts the man whom they call "God's high priest" on no higher ground than "a ruler of your people."
Ask how Ananias got the post, and the point sharpens:
One can hardly say honestly that Ananias was God's high priest, for the Romans had appointed him. Yet Paul recognised his place of rule.
The verse also shows how believers treat those in power, including hostile ones:
Here Paul stands as a Christian before a ruler who fiercely opposed Christ. He treats this word of Old Testament Scripture as binding on himself toward any such ruler.
That submission has one limit:
Notice in these instances how well Paul practised what he teaches us here. Only one thing frees us from the subjection required: when submitting to the authorities would mean disobeying God.
Jesus, struck in the same way, asked why He was struck — and never took a word back. That difference is deliberately drawn out:
His path is without a stain... So Jesus is without fault, though all others fail. He has no step to retrace, no word to recall. He could rightly defend Himself in every case, and even rebuke His accuser... But even Paul, in such a case, had to recall his word.
- Ignorance. Paul did not know who had ordered the blow. Writers differ on the reason: an informal meeting with no robes, or weak eyesight.
- Correction. Told the truth, he did not argue — he bowed to the word at once and withdrew what he had said.
- Authority. The verse Paul quotes honours the office, not the man. Rome had appointed Ananias, yet he still ruled the people.
- Limit. Submit to rulers in everything — except where obeying them would mean disobeying God.
- Contrast. Paul had a word to recall; in the same case Christ had none — the servant fails where the Master never did.
But Paul, knowing that the one part [of them] were of the Sadducees and the other of the Pharisees, cried out in the council, Brethren, *I* am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees *I* am judged concerning the hope and resurrection of [the] dead.
Paul stands before the Jewish ruling council. He sees that his judges belong to two rival parties, and he calls out a label from his own past. Commentators read the moment in two ways. Some hear the truth that carried his whole preaching. Others hear a clever move, made below his usual level.
Paul's words about his background were true. But his standing had changed:
Pharisees and Sadducees stood on opposite sides over the teaching of resurrection. Of course Paul still believed about resurrection just as the Pharisees did. In fact he went further than they did, for he knew Christ as raised from among the dead. And though he was brought up a Pharisee, he no longer belonged to that party. He was a Christian.
Paul says resurrection is what he is on trial for. He keeps saying it at every later hearing:
Look again at Acts 23:6, where Paul states plainly that he was put on trial for preaching this teaching — whether or not the apostle was right to appeal to the prejudices of the Pharisees. In Acts 24:15 he says the same thing. In Acts 26 he gives it to king Agrippa as the reason he is being held, and again in verse 23. These passages show clearly that the resurrection was the basis of the apostle's preaching and of the hope of the faithful.
Paul names the resurrection of the dead. That is not the same as the resurrection from among the dead:
The Jewish teaching of a resurrection of the dead is true as far as it goes. The Pharisees held it, and so did all Jews except the Sadducees, who denied it, as the pagan philosophers did. But the Lord Jesus taught a resurrection from the dead — plainly, from among the dead (Luke 20:35). This was the very thing that upset the Jews so much: that the apostles preached the resurrection from the dead through Jesus. The resurrection from among the dead went beyond all their teaching, and it offended them deeply.
The Sadducees denied resurrection. That denial cannot survive what happened to Jesus:
The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief in every age. It is God stepping in with power while the world carries on as it is. It is the pledge that the risen One will come and judge the world. He is the One God has appointed as Judge of the living and the dead. Resurrection is the only and final state of man that answers to God's purposes and will display His glory.
Commentators differ here. One asks whether the appeal matched the truth Paul usually preached:
Here the root of the matter appears. The apostle makes use of a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes the ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing men to his side. "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees," he cried. Was this up to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was undeniably true. But was it Christ as everything? Or was it a shrewd appeal, certain to divide the crowd in front of him, and a step down to ground far lower than he usually stood on?
Another writer gives Paul the benefit of the doubt, yet stops short of full approval:
Set against the Sadducees, Paul's claim to be a Pharisee was surely justified. It is hard to believe he would have made that claim in any other setting. But we are bound to credit him, and a man like the apostle above all, with the highest motive possible for what he did. Even so, he is clearly not at his best.
The Pharisees took Paul's side. Their reason had nothing to do with truth:
His cry had the effect he expected. It rallied the Pharisees to his side and made the Sadducees furious. They were all party men, and they judged everything by party. Taking him for one of their own, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them; party did. The same thing is very common today, and Christians are not free from it. So let us take the warning it gives us.
- True — Paul was raised a Pharisee. But he had gone further than any Pharisee. He knew Christ raised from among the dead.
- Partial — he named the resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees held. He did not name the resurrection from among the dead, which had offended them.
- Central — resurrection really was the charge. Paul says the same thing later to king Agrippa. It was the basis of his preaching and of the hope of the faithful.
- Divisive — the risen Christ is a death blow to Sadducee unbelief. He is God's pledge that the risen One will return to judge.
- Costly — the appeal split the council, but it put Paul on lower ground than usual. The Pharisees rallied to a party, not to the truth, and that habit still shows up among Christians today.
And when he had spoken this, there was a tumult of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided.
Paul stands before the Jewish council. One sentence about resurrection tears the room in two. Commentators read that result in very different ways. Was this a servant of Christ using truth wisely, or a man in danger falling back on something less?
The division did not happen by accident. Paul had scanned the council and spoken to what he saw.
The apostle uses a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing to his side. "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees," he cried. Was this up to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was unquestionably true; but was it Christ as everything? Was it not rather a shrewd appeal? It was certain to split the crowd in front of him, and it let him fall back on ground far lower than he was used to.
One subject was certain to divide that assembly. The two parties had led the opposition at different times, and resurrection is what changed that.
All through the Acts of the Apostles the Sadducees led the opposition, after the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Spirit. The Pharisees had led it in the same way while the Lord was on earth. There seems a certain fitness in this. The Righteous One was unbearable to the earthly-minded champions of human righteousness. They were always found wanting when weighed in God's balances. When He rose from the dead, the Sadducees sprang into action. They held outward power at the time, and the high priests seem to have come one after another from that party. The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief at all times.
Commentators differ on how to judge Paul here. Darby weighs his claim against Paul's own written words.
Afterwards he takes advantage of the different parties that made up the council. He throws it into complete disorder by declaring himself a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, called in question over a teaching of that sect. This was true; but it was below the height of his own word, "that which was gain I counted loss for Christ's sake."
The pressure that produced it is one every believer knows.
The division produced was no doubt what men would call politic; that is, the apostle meant to divide and conquer... I do mean that there was a kind of using the difference that reigned between those who held to the word of God with at least an outward religious respect, and those who despised it; and this is a danger no man is free from, especially when he is in danger.
The Pharisees' reaction exposed what drove the council. Their sudden support for Paul had nothing to do with his innocence.
It rallied the Pharisees to his aid, while violently antagonising the Sadducees. They were all true party men, viewing everything from a party standpoint. Assuming him to be of their party, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same kind of thing is very common today, and Christians are not immune from it; so let us accept the warning given to us here.
Splitting his accusers did not set Paul free. The party he stung still held the power.
The effect was immediate. A dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. No doubt the apostle was not preaching the gospel here, nor giving the testimony his heart usually turned to. Christ used no such measures when He was being judged; but it was surely righteous in itself, even if not up to the height of grace in Christ. Yet it brought Paul no deliverance. His adversaries were divided, but power lay with those who felt the blow struck at their unbelief.
Paul's own verdict on the tactic came later, and so did his Lord's answer to it.
Paul had used a rather clever device of his own to divide the Jewish council, setting the Pharisees and the Sadducees against each other. In Acts 24:21 he seems to admit that he had been wrong to do it. We can well imagine the night that followed. Paul lay in the Roman prison, too sad and discouraged to sleep. He was full of regret over what he felt had dishonoured the worthy Name he bore. Then the Lord Himself comes and stands by him... not to scold him — no indeed! — but to say once again that well known and well loved word, "Cheer up, Paul!"
- Divided by design — Paul saw two parties in the room. He spoke the one word certain to split them, so the tearing apart of the council was the effect he meant to get.
- Divided over resurrection — Christ risen was a death blow to the whole Sadducee system. That is why this one subject cut the room in half.
- Divided but true — Paul's claim was true, and it was righteous in itself. Commentators still place it below his own words about counting all gain as loss for Christ.
- Divided by party, not truth — the Pharisees backed Paul because they assumed he was one of them. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, and that warning still stands for us.
- Divided, yet undelivered — the split gained Paul nothing, and power stayed with his enemies. That same night the Lord came and stood by His discouraged servant with a word of cheer.
For Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but Pharisees confess both of them.
This short note explains why one sentence from Paul tore the council in half. It names the three things the two ruling parties could not agree on. The first of them, resurrection, is the foundation of everything Paul preached.
The verse describes this party by what they denied. A reference work fills in what they did and did not believe:
Next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were the most prominent sect of the Jews. The Pharisees made converts. The Sadducees were far more exclusive, so they stayed fewer in number. They did not believe in resurrection, angels, or spirits. They held that the soul died with the body. They were strict about the written law of Moses. But they rejected the traditions of the elders, known as the oral law.
In the earlier chapters of Acts, the Sadducees lead the attacks on the apostles, not the Pharisees. One writer explains why they fought so hard:
All through the Acts of the Apostles we have seen the Sadducees lead the opposition. They led it after Christ rose and the Spirit came, just as the Pharisees had led it while the Lord was on earth… The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to unbelief at all times. For it is God's intervention in power while the world goes on as it is, the pledge that the risen One will come and judge it.
The verse lists three denials. "Angel" and "spirit" are not two words for the same thing. One writer uses this verse, and the words shouted at the council soon after, to pin down what "spirit" means:
There the word "spirit" means what our word "ghost" means now: the spirits of people apart from the body. The verse puts angels in a separate class. And the context confirms this… "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?"
The Lord Himself had already answered this same party, and His reply touched every item on their list:
The Sadducees had raised a question about a resurrection of the body. The Lord in reply showed that He rejected all their distinctive beliefs, as stated in Acts 23:8. The resurrection is a Scripture truth. Angels there are, and the saints when raised will be equal to them. Spirits also exist, for all who have left the body live to God.
Commentators differ on whether Paul's cry was wisdom or a lapse. One reads it as a shrewd and true statement. It exposed how little the council cared about anything but party:
He presented himself as a Pharisee, on trial about the hope of resurrection. He was indeed a Pharisee by birth and early training, and resurrection does lie at the very foundation of the gospel… The Pharisees took him for one of their own, and swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same kind of thing is very common today, and Christians are not immune from it.
Another agrees the words were true, but asks whether they were the testimony Paul usually gave:
The apostle uses a split between the two great parties of the Jews. He takes the ground that would win the more orthodox and God-fearing to his side… It was true beyond question. But did it put Christ at the centre? Was it not simply a careful appeal? It was sure to divide the crowd in front of him, and it let him fall back on much lower ground than he usually took.
The Sadducee outlook did not die with the council. One writer names what lay behind it:
The Sadducees were the sceptics of that day and of the lowest kind; materialism had blinded them… A person's present life becomes everything. They shut God out, and even deny Him, because He is unseen.
The cure they point to is not argument. It is the preaching of the risen Christ:
Resurrection of the dead is faith's great weapon against the error of the day, and for souls in danger of destruction. Resurrection from among the dead is a greater weapon still. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is sending forgiveness of sins through His name… That alone is the true deliverance from what the Sadducees taught, and from anything like it today.
- Denial — the Sadducees cut out three things — resurrection, angels, and spirits. They taught that the soul died with the body.
- Motive — the risen Jesus destroyed that system. So this party, not the Pharisees, led the opposition in Acts.
- Distinction — "spirit" here means people's spirits apart from the body. Angels are a separate class.
- Division — Paul's claim was true, but commentators differ. One sees a shrewd move that exposed party spirit. Another asks whether it put Christ at the centre.
- Deliverance — the same denial lives on as materialism. The cure is the truth that split the council: resurrection, and forgiveness through the name of the risen Christ.
And there was a great clamour, and the scribes of the Pharisees' part rising up contended, saying, We find nothing evil in this man; and if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel ...
Paul stands on trial before the Jewish ruling council, and his claim to be a Pharisee has just torn the room in two. The shouting peaks here. Men who had been his judges become his defenders. What were their words worth, and what did they mean by "a spirit or an angel"?
The rescue came from men who had not changed their minds about Paul's message — only about which side he was on.
He presented himself as a Pharisee who was on trial over the hope of resurrection. He was without doubt a Pharisee by birth and early training. And resurrection does lie at the very foundation of the Gospel. His cry had the effect he expected. It rallied the Pharisees to his aid, while it made the Sadducees fiercely hostile. They were all true party men, viewing everything from a party standpoint. Assuming him to be of their party, the Pharisees swung round in his favour. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did. The same thing is very common today, and Christians are not free from it. So let us take the warning given to us here.
The verse calls them "the scribes of the Pharisees' party." That puts two labels, scribe and Pharisee, on the same men.
Scribes did not form a separate sect in New Testament times. A person might be both a scribe and a Pharisee, or a scribe and a Sadducee: compare Acts 23:9.
The two words are not synonyms. They name two different classes, and the Pharisees held to both against the Sadducees.
Normally, the everyday language of the day is based on the older, Scriptural usage. That language speaks of departed spirits and of ghosts — "ghost" is simply the old English word for the same thing. A "spirit," as in Acts 23:8-9, was the common term for one who had passed into the unseen state. The Pharisees declared their belief in "spirits." They kept them clearly distinct from "angels," and they said so against the unbelief of the Sadducees. So the disciples thought the risen Lord was a "spirit," and the Lord answers them, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones." So the departed saints are "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" (Heb. 12:23), while the unrighteous are "the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19).
The verse stops mid-thought. Older English Bibles finish it: "let us not fight against God." The strongest manuscripts leave the question hanging.
Acts 23:9 ends correctly with "and if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?" The manuscripts ℵ A B C E and other good authorities read it that way. The longer ending of the common text still has much support, though.
Commentators differ over which ending to follow. Those who keep the longer one hear an echo of Gamaliel, who had once urged the council to leave the apostles alone.
Some of the scribes belonging to the Pharisees shouted in defence of the prisoner: "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God." That last sentence was a faint echo of the advice Gamaliel had given.
Whatever their motive, Paul's own judges announced they had nothing against him. The court that should have guarded the truth had already shown what it was worth.
The people trampled down the demands of truth and justice in the blind fury of religious zeal. Their rulers are to set those demands aside even more wilfully, deliberately and hypocritically — yet not without a witness from among themselves to what is due to the truth of God... though Ananias the high priest orders Paul to be struck against the law, the Pharisees in the council still argued against the Sadducees, saying, "We find nothing evil in this man."
Half the council now spoke for Paul. Did that open the prison door?
No doubt the apostle was not preaching the gospel here. He was not giving the testimony his heart usually turned to. Christ used no such measures when He was judged. Yet what Paul did was righteous in itself, even if it did not reach the height of grace in Christ. Yet it brought Paul no rescue. His enemies were divided, but power stayed with those who felt the blow struck at their unbelief.
- Cause — Paul's claim to be a Pharisee split the council. The split, not his message, turned his judges into his defenders.
- Party — the Pharisees backed him because they assumed he was one of them. Truth and righteousness did not count with them, but party did.
- Words — "spirit" and "angel" mean two different things here. A spirit is someone who has passed into the unseen state; an angel is a heavenly being. The Pharisees held to both against Sadducean unbelief.
- Verdict — "We find nothing wrong in this man" is an acquittal from Paul's own accusers. Even a corrupt court produced a witness to what is due to the truth.
- Limit — the acquittal freed nobody. Power stayed with the party he had offended. A half-defence from men who valued their side above the truth left him a prisoner still.
And a great tumult having arisen, the chiliarch, fearing lest Paul should have been torn in pieces by them, commanded the troop to come down and take him by force from the midst of them, and to bring [him] into the fortress.
Paul's defence before the Jewish council never became a trial; it became a riot, and Roman soldiers had to drag him out alive. Why did God guard His chief missionary by pagan troops rather than by His own people?
Paul had told the council he was a Pharisee, on trial over the resurrection. The two parties turned on each other.
All through Acts the Sadducean party appear as the chief opponents of the gospel. Their materialistic outlook, denying the resurrection, accounted for this. Here we have our last glimpse of them. They protest in fury at Paul's sudden switch to the Pharisees' side, and use such physical force that they might have pulled him to pieces. Their violence defeated their purpose. It forced the chief captain to step in, and Paul was rescued from the hands of his own people for the second time.
The commander could see that Israel's supreme court could not keep order, let alone reach a verdict:
The chief captain could only gather that no one could charge his prisoner with anything deserving death or imprisonment... For the council was divided. The Pharisees declared there was no evil in Paul; the Sadducees, if they had had their way, would have killed him. Calm judgment and fair justice were plainly missing from their proceedings.
Was it right for Paul to divide his judges? The writers do not agree. One reads the move as true in fact but beneath the apostle's own standard:
Afterwards he uses the different parties in the council to throw it into complete disorder. He declares himself to be a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, on trial over a teaching of that group. This was true; but it was below the height of his own word, "whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ."
The officer was a chiliarch, which means a captain of a thousand. He took Paul to the Roman stronghold beside the temple. Luke's word for it can mean either the fortress of Antonia or the barracks attached to it (C. E. Stuart). His reaction was that of an outsider to Jewish religious passion:
The Gentile commander was not used to the outbursts of violence among the Jews when a question of religious difference came up and stirred them. At that time the pagan world cared little about religion. The Jews were different, though their moral state was very bad. So the commander, alarmed at the uproar, had Paul pulled out from among men who seemed worked up enough to tear him to pieces.
The soldiers acted on a commander's nerves. One writer sees a larger hand behind the same event:
We now find the apostle in the hands of the Gentiles. There may have been no free action of the Spirit in Paul himself. Yet the providence of God cares for him, and orders everything for the testimony he was to bear... The unyielding hatred of the Jews only brings about the fulfilment of God's counsels... God makes a prisoner His servant, so that the gospel might reach governors and kings.
There is a second deliverance here that is easy to miss.
The Spirit had expressly forbidden him, through the disciples at Tyre, to go to Jerusalem; yet he went. Only God's intervention through the Roman power stopped the Jews from carrying out their murderous purpose, and stopped Paul from compromising the truth — which his presence at the altar of burnt offering, with the sacrifices the law required, would certainly have brought about. It was a mercy to the whole Church that the Romans took Paul prisoner. Could the teaching of the letter to the Hebrews have been set out later, if the great champion of the full Christian faith had at this time surrendered it for the sake of convenience?
Verse 10 ends with Paul safe but still a prisoner, in what looked like a wrecked mission. That is exactly when the Lord appeared to him.
It was not the happiest position for one who valued nothing but Christ. The Lord is good indeed: not a word of blame, nothing but the assurance of help. And this came by so remarkable an appearing, at the very time when discouragement would have been natural. The apostle's visit to Jerusalem had not turned out in the least as he desired. He might have regarded it as only a failure. The Lord noticed nothing but his faithful testimony, and He adds that Paul must testify at Rome also.
- Violence — the Sadducees' fury put Paul out of their reach. Their own weapon defeated their purpose.
- Rescue — alarmed by an uproar he did not understand, the commander pulled Paul into the Roman fortress.
- Providence — behind the soldiers, God cared for His servant and ordered everything for the testimony he still had to give.
- Reach — God made a prisoner His servant, so the gospel reached governors and kings.
- Comfort — the Lord came with no blame for a journey that looked like failure, only help and a testimony still to give at Rome.