It would appear that what excited the alarm of the commander and the centurion was the tying up Paul with the thongs. This was a great offense against a Roman citizen. “Because he had bound him,” I understand to be for this purpose, for in an ordinary way it appears that he was not absolutely loosed. “But on the morrow desiring to know the certainty why he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set [him] before them. And Paul, fixing his eyes on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by him to smite his mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God is about to smite thee, whited wall. And dost thou sit judging me according to the law, and breaking the law commandest me to be smitten? And those that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? and Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people” (Acts 22:30-23:5).
It is scarcely supposed that this was a regular assemblage of the Sanhedrim; it was done hurriedly to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority so to assemble the religious chiefs of the Jews. This may serve to explain what ordinarily would seem scarcely intelligible. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. Had he been in his official robes, this could scarcely be understood; especially as we are told that Paul looked steadfastly at the council. If it were an informal meeting, neither high priest nor other may have worn any distinctive raiment.
Ananias is quite distinct from Annas the high priest in the earlier days of the Gospels; nor had he been so long appointed that Paul must have remembered him. He may have been a comparative stranger to the apostle, especially in his official capacity. But, what is of more importance to remark, the apostle’s testimony was that he had lived before God in all good conscience unto this day: not a word about Christ or the gospel. It was thoroughly true. Even in his unconverted days we know that he could say, “Touching law, a Pharisee....touching righteousness that is in law, found blameless” Of this he thinks and speaks as he confronted the council. Surely it was not according to his new calling and that which was his life now. For Christ was all to him. He was thinking of the Jews; he declared what seemed thoroughly calculated to meet their thoughts. But it utterly failed, and the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by to smite him on the mouth. This was an injurious insult, perpetrated by the judge, and in the teeth of the law. But it is not surprising that the apostle’s words provoked the high priest; and none the less, because he was as far as possible from the conscientiousness of a Gamaliel.
But the apostle resented the contumely and reproved it severely. “God will smite thee, whited 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 smite the hypocrite not long after.
As high priest he was sitting to judge Paul after the law, and there contrary to the law he commanded him to be smitten; but did Paul rise in his quick rebuke to the height of grace any more than of truth? The apostle is thoroughly righteous, but he descends rather to the same ground on which they stood; he had spoken with warmth however truly, so that the bystanders could say, “Revilest thou God’s high priest? And Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.” The apostle hastens to acknowledge the error, as far as it was such, whatever might be the unworthiness of the conduct and of the language that occasioned it. Still Ananias was high priest that day. This Paul owns. He ought not to have spoken so of one in that position. The word is plain, “Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.” Overruled of God and prophetic, was it Christ-like? Was it not rather the immediate resentment of a righteous man at an unrighteous deed? He at once apologizes, when he learned the official state of the judge however unjust. “I wist not,” and so on. But God loves to guide those who are kept immediately dependent on Him, even when they know nothing of the circumstances.
The apostle throughout scarcely seems to be breathing his ordinary spiritual atmosphere. This comes out still more plainly in what follows. “But when Paul perceived that the one part were of the Sadducees and the other of the Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; concerning the hope and resurrection of [the] dead I am judged” (vs. 6). Here the root of the matter appears. The apostle avails himself of a rent between the two great parties of the Jews, to take the ground which would enlist the more orthodox and God-fearing in his favor, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees,” he cried. Was this again according to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was incontestably true; but was it Christ all in all? was it not rather a prudent appeal sure to split up the crowd before him, for himself to fall back on a ground altogether lower than his wont? Nevertheless there was truth and important truth before all here. “I am judged concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead.” This thoroughly falls in with the book of the Acts. Luke begins here as his Gospel ends, with the resurrection and ascension, and gives full scope to the testimony of the risen Lord throughout. The apostle every where consistently urges the hope and resurrection of the dead. It was bound up with Christ, the Son of man; but he does not directly introduce the fall truth of His person any more than he puts forward at this time the resurrection “from” the dead. The resurrection “of” the dead is ft great and needed truth notwithstanding; and to this, not the Sadducees who now were in power, but the Pharisees in their way held firmly.
The apostle knew resurrection in an incomparably larger measure. To him it was inseparable from the glorified Christ, the Head of the church, who really was his life and his testimony; and for this he endured habitual rejection and suffering. But in Jerusalem the apostle is not found in the same power as elsewhere. The spirit of the place had its influence; in all this business we find him by no means according to that heavenly light which so shines throughout his accustomed orbit.