Acts 23:1 - Meaning and Application

Perhaps when Paul was brought, as he often was, before pagan rulers and councils, he may have thought this would be his best chance to speak. Those courts often despised both him and his message, because they did not understand either one. He may have hoped he could make a real case before the Jewish council in Jerusalem, but we do not find that he won them over at all.

Here we see, first, Paul’s clear claim of innocence. Whether the high priest questioned him or the chief captain explained his case to the court, we are not told. But Paul stood before them with courage. He was not embarrassed to stand before such an honored group, a group he had once deeply respected in his youth. He did not even fear that they would remind him of the letters they had given him to go to Damascus and persecute Christians there, though this was likely the first time he had seen them since then. Instead, he looked straight at the council. When Stephen was brought before this same council, they tried to stare him down, but could not, because of his holy confidence, and his face was like an angel’s (Acts 6:15). Now Paul was brought before them, and he seemed ready to face them as well, but their bold wickedness would not let them be moved. Still, what God had said to Ezekiel was fulfilled in him: “I have made your face strong against their faces. Do not fear them, and do not be dismayed at their looks” (Ezekiel 3:8, 9).

Paul also stood there with a clear conscience, and that gave him courage. It is like the old line that says a clean conscience is a strong bronze wall of defense. He said, “Men and brothers, I have lived before God with a clear conscience to this day.” Though others may accuse me, my heart does not accuse me. It speaks for me.

Paul means several things by this. He had always been inclined toward religion. He was never a careless man who lived without thinking, nor a calculating man who did whatever served his own purposes. Even before he was converted, he had taken moral right and wrong seriously, and as far as the law’s outward righteousness was concerned, he had been blameless. When he persecuted the church of God, he thought he should do it, and believed he was serving God. His conscience was mistaken, but he was following it honestly (Acts 26:9).

He also seems to speak mainly about the time since his conversion. Since he left the service of the high priest, they had treated him as a deserter, an apostate, and an enemy. Yet he does not say, “From my youth until now.” Instead, he says, in effect, “During all the time you have condemned me, I have lived with a clear conscience before God.” Whatever they thought of him, he had tried in everything to answer to God and live honestly (Hebrews 13:18). In all he had done to establish the kingdom of Christ, especially among the Gentiles, he had acted with care for his conscience.

This gives us the picture of an honest man. He keeps God before him and lives as one who is always under God’s eye. He feels bound by conscience in what he says and does, and though he may still make mistakes, he follows the best light he has and avoids evil as he understands it. He is conscientious in every part of life, not just in one area. And he keeps on that way, so that he can say, “I have lived in all good conscience until this day.” No matter what changes come, he remains the same, governed by conscience. Those who live like this before God can, like Paul, hold up their heads without shame. If their hearts do not condemn them, they can have confidence before both God and people, as Job did when he held fast to his integrity, and as Paul did when he said his conscience testified for him.

Second, we see the outrage committed by Ananias the high priest, who ordered the attendants to strike Paul on the mouth (Acts 23:2). They gave him a blow, either with a hand or a rod. Our Lord Jesus was treated the same way in this court by one of the servants (John 18:22), fulfilling the prophecy that they would strike the Judge of Israel on the cheek (Micah 5:1). But here the court itself ordered the abuse, and it likely was carried out.

The high priest was deeply offended by Paul. Some think this was because Paul looked so boldly and steadily at the council, as if he meant to challenge them. Others think it was because Paul did not address him separately with a title of honor and respect, but spoke to them all plainly as “men and brothers.” In any case, Paul’s claim of innocence was enough to anger a man who was determined to crush him and make him appear hateful. When the high priest could not charge him with any crime, he treated Paul’s claim of innocence itself as offensive.

In his rage, he ordered Paul to be struck, both to disgrace him and to silence him. The blow on the mouth marked him as a man who had spoken wrongly, or it was meant to cut him off from speaking any more. This crude and brutal response was what he chose when he could not answer the wisdom and spirit with which Paul spoke. In the same way, Zedekiah struck Micaiah (1 Kings 22:24), and Pashhur struck Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2), when they spoke in the Lord’s name. So if we see such insults done to good people, or even if they happen to us for doing and saying what is right, we should not find it strange. Christ will give the kisses of his mouth to those who, for his sake, receive blows on the mouth (Song of Solomon 1:2). And though it is right, as Solomon says, that a man should kiss the lips of one who gives a right answer (Proverbs 24:26), we often see the opposite.

Third, we hear Paul’s warning of God’s anger against the high priest for this evil done in the very place of judgment (Ecclesiastes 3:16). It fits with Solomon’s thought there, where he comforted himself by saying, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked” (Ecclesiastes 3:17). Paul said, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall” (Acts 23:3). He did not speak in sinful anger or personal revenge. He spoke with holy zeal against the high priest’s misuse of power, and with something of a prophetic spirit.

He first gives the high priest his true character: “You whitewashed wall.” That means hypocrite. He is like a mud wall, full of trash and rubble underneath, but covered over with plaster or whitewash. It is much the same picture Jesus used when he called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27).

Paul’s strong words drew a fitting response. Those who paint a wall with weak mortar often end up covering themselves with something that only makes them look cleaner and brighter. In the same way, the high priest tried to look righteous, but his actions exposed him.

Paul then pronounces the man’s rightful judgment: “God will strike you and bring severe judgments on you,” especially spiritual judgments. Grotius thought this was fulfilled soon after, when Ananias was removed from the office of high priest, either by death or by losing the office. He suggests that Paul’s words may have been followed by a sudden act of divine punishment, like Jeroboam’s hand, which withered when it was stretched out against a prophet.

Paul also explains why the judgment was deserved. Ananias sat there as the chief judge in the church, pretending to judge Paul by the law and to condemn him under the law. Yet he had Paul struck before any crime had been proven, which was against the law. No one should be beaten unless he deserves it (Deuteronomy 25:2). It is against all law, human and divine, natural and written, to stop a man from defending himself and to condemn him without hearing him.

When Paul was beaten by the crowd, he could say, “Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing.” But a high priest appointed to judge according to the law was without excuse. Still, Paul’s bold words caused offense. Those standing by said, “Do you insult God’s high priest?” It is likely that these were believing Jews, zealous for the law and for the honor of the high priest. So they took Paul’s words badly and rebuked him.

This shows how hard Paul’s situation was. His enemies were abusive, and even his friends were not fully on his side. Instead of supporting him, they were ready to criticize how he handled himself. It also shows how easily even Christ’s disciples can overvalue outward rank and display. Some could not bear any threat to the temple because it had been God’s temple and a great building. In the same way, these believers were troubled that Paul spoke sharply to the high priest, even though the man was an enemy of Christianity.

Paul then explained himself because he saw that his words had stumbled weaker brothers. These Jewish Christians were weak, but they were still brothers, and he treated them that way. He was almost ready to take his words back, for he had said, “Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with concern?” (2 Corinthians 11:29). He was fixed on this principle, he would rather limit his Christian freedom than offend a weak brother, even if that meant giving up eating meat altogether (1 Corinthians 8:13).

So here, even though he had spoken plainly to the high priest, he admitted fault when he saw it caused offense. He was not trying to excuse himself to the high priest, but he did ask pardon from those who were troubled by it. This was not the moment to explain everything in his own defense. He says first that he did not realize, at the moment, that he was speaking to the high priest.

“I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest” (Acts 23:5), means, “I did not think about the dignity of his office, or I would have spoken more respectfully.” It is hard to believe Paul did not know who he was, since he had been in Jerusalem for days during the feast and could hardly have missed seeing the high priest. He also plainly showed that he knew the man was the judge. But Paul may mean that he did not consider it in that moment. Some say the prophetic impulse on him kept him from pausing over the man’s office.

Others take Paul’s words as a stronger defense. He may be saying, “I do not deny that God’s high priest should not be reviled, but I do not accept that this Ananias is truly high priest.” On that view, Ananias was a usurper who got the office by bribery and corruption, and Jewish teachers said that such a man was not fit to be honored as a judge.

Paul still makes sure no one will use his words to weaken the law. It is written, and still stands, “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.” Public honor must be supported for the good of society, and the faults of those in office should not destroy respect for the office itself. For that reason, we should speak with care both about rulers and to rulers. Even in Job’s time, it was not thought proper to say to a king, “You are wicked,” or to princes, “You are ungodly” (Job 34:18).

Even when we do right and still suffer for it, we must bear it patiently (1 Peter 2:20). This does not mean that rulers can never be told of their sins, or that public wrongs can never be brought up. Proper people may complain, and they may do so in a fitting way. But those in authority deserve special respect, because God calls them his representatives. It is dangerous to support people who despise rulers and speak evil of dignities (Jude 1:8). “Do not curse the king, even in your thoughts” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).