I am certain you have heard it … and I would most likely have said it a few times since I started writing Daily Notes … Doctrine divides! Being a pastor I have counselled a fair amount of people over 40 odd years. One of the difficult waters to pass through is laying the Word of God before people, providing them with Biblical solutions to their problem. Most people refuse it. They don’t want to know what God says the solution to their problem is. They want their problems solved their way not God’s way. Into this environment some will say … “I don’t want doctrine. Doctrine is a problem. Doctrine divides.” What they are saying is they don’t want God’s doctrine on marriage, parenting, chastity, manhood, womanhood, etc. They see worldly options for their problems better than God’s way. It’s like saying to God … “God, thank You, but I know better.” However, the matter becomes far direr when people reject doctrines that influence or affect their eternal salvation. We shall come across this in our passage today. Please read:
Ac 22:30 The next day, since the commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them. 23:1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” 2 At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 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!” 4 Those who were standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?” 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.’”
1) The authority of the commander. We ended here yesterday.
Ac 22:30 The next day, since the commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them.
Now that the commander realized Paul was a Roman Citizen, he needed to ascertain all the facts surrounding why the mob wanted him dead. To do this he commanded (the meaning of ordered) the chief priests as well as the Jewish Ruling Council (the Sanhedrin) to hold an assembly, together with Paul and himself to find out what the Jews were charging Paul with. As a Roman commander of a battalion he was rather considerate, not wanting anymore rules against Roman citizens such as Paul broken.
2) The defense of Paul. We have already determined what the problem was …
(i) The fact that Paul believed Jesus was Messiah and
(ii) That according to the mob, Paul was allowing Gentiles to be admitted into the Kingdom of God.
He now eyeballs the Jewish leaders and says that he has a clear conscience because he had to that day, fulfilled his duty towards God. As always Paul is respectful and calls the meeting “brothers”. After all they were brothers as part of the Hebrew People. But what did he mean by saying … I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day?
(1) “Fulfilling my duty to God” has two aspects to it. The first is that as a fully-fledged Jew, that is, as a citizen of God’s Kingdom, he diligently kept the Law legalistically. He lived life strictly according to God’s Law (which would be the first five Books of the Bible). He then says “to this day” meaning that he continued to live according the Word of God (Law) in the Christian sense. Throughout his life as one who was aware of the true God, he held to living life according to what God prescribed in the Word.
(2) “In all good conscience” means that in his thinking, speaking and doing, he acted corrected, holding to the morality God prescribes for His people. He was decent, honest, moral and full of integrity. He was free of guilt because he conducted himself righteously before God and man.
3) The high priest. Caiaphas, Ananias’ son-in-law was officially the high priest having ascended to the office after his father-in-law. However, Ananias exercised a great deal of power as the former high priest. This might be the reason Paul said … I did not realize that he was the high priest.
(1) Ananias orders those closet to Paul to strike him for saying he had fulfilled his duty to God. In Ananias’ mind it was … “How could you say that when you deserted the Jewish faith. You became a Christian. Beat him on the mouth!” Why on the mouth … because Ananias believed what Paul said was blasphemy. He “sinned” with the mouth and needed to be punished on the mouth.
(2) Paul’s response was not wrong. Ananias was a whitewashed wall. The Lord Jesus used this concept of the Pharisees. It was a term used for hypocrites. Ananias judged Paul according to the way Judaism read the Law … yet in the same breath he commands others to break the Law by beating Paul. He held to the Law but he did not live according to or practice the Law in his heart. So Paul rebukes him by saying … “God will strike you.” ”You apply the Law but you don’t practice the Law. Hypocrite! Whitewash wall!”
(3) Paul gets rebuked. The members of the Sanhedrin closest to Paul put the question to him … “You dare to insult God’s high priest? The secular saying goes … “no one is above the law.” That was true of the high priest … but he was spiritually dead. He would not understand that he was the problem … like he was with Jesus’ death sentence!
(4) Paul apologizes.
Ac 23:5 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.’”
This shows that he was submissive to the Law. He knew it and he apologized! The second part of the following verse was in Paul’s mind:
Ex 22:28 “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.”
4) Who was in control? I’m going to raise an issue and continue with it tomorrow. Paul opens up a can of worms. He uses proved Biblical doctrine to take the argument to them who are opposing members of the Sanhedrin. The reason I asked who was in control is because we need to see that at this stage, neither the commander, nor the high priest not the Pharisees or Sadducees were in control of the hearing. God by His Spirit was. Listen to what the Holy Spirit puts in Paul’s mind … that he speaks:
Ac 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”
As you read on you will see what a red herring Paul dumped on the table! The Pharisees believe in the resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees did not. But more … in their minds they knew Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead! Is this not what we Christians subscribe too? Is this not our great hope after our Lord returns?
Our Father, thank You that in the Bible You address so many issues for our benefit and education. Help us never to shy away from Biblical doctrines. Amen.