Act 23:2 | KingComments | STEP | Paul turns to the Council and addresses them. He is not questioned first, but immediately takes the floor. He is on the same level as them, for they are both parties to the government represented by the commander. With his opening words “brethren”, he again makes clear the bond he has with them, he identifies himself with them and assures himself of their attention. He begins with the testimony of a perfectly good conscience before God. He has always had this ( ), even when he persecuted the church. After all, he believed he was offering a service to God ( ). It shows how relative the conscience is. His change, his conversion, has no consequences for the functioning of his conscience. Even after his conversion he did nothing else than what he was convinced of before God. He is always careful to keep his conscience free from any charge against himself ( ). A good conscience can be kept when one performs sincerely and severely everything to which this conscience instigates. At the same time, the conscience is a strictly personal matter. Only if it is subject to God’s Word can it function in a way that is a blessing to others and to the honor of God. Precisely because the conscience is so strongly personal, it is not a strong argument for defending a decision. It is very subjective and cannot be checked by anyone. These words about his conscience are the only words Paul can say. He does not get a chance to say anything about the Lord Jesus. The high priest is very annoyed, possibly both by Paul’s promptness and by what Paul says. How dare this apostate Jew speak about a walk before God with a good conscience! He immediately wants the initiative back and takes it by ordering that Paul be forcibly silenced. When Paul hears this, he immediately reacts with a sharp remark. His answer is justified, but it does not reveal the gentleness of Christ (cf. ). The judgment Paul makes here has the character of a prophecy which, according to profane history, has also come true. The expression which Paul uses for the high priest, “whitewashed wall”, he did not invent himself. He borrowed it from the prophet Ezekiel, who uses this expression for the hypocritical rulers of Israel who led the people astray ( ; cf. ). Their manner of speaking resembled the use of white lime, which covered cracks and holes so that they could no longer be seen. Their words not only made the cracked state among the people invisible, but gave it a beautiful appearance. God, however, will reveal and judge this state of affairs. The bystanders are outraged by the scolding of the high priest. To them, he is the high priest of God. Apparently the high priest is not dressed in his ministerial habit and therefore not recognizable as such for Paul. It is also possible that Paul did not see him well. He had bad eyes ( ). Paul shows respect for the ministry, not for the man. Nor does he speak of ‘the high priest of God ’. However, he does accept the correction for his outburst because he is reminded inwardly of a word from Scripture ( ). The Word brings Paul to confession. The quoted word is not about a high priest, but about someone who has authority over the people. The principle is general and therefore also applies to the high priest, because of his ministry, no matter how unworthy the man may behave in that ministry. Paul does not try to put his statement into perspective by explaining the text differently. This is an example for us. What the Lord could say does not apply to him: “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” ( ). Nor would the Lord ever have to say: ‘I did not know.’ He answered the high priest in a perfectly dignified manner and for this He also received a slap in the face. His response was as perfectly worthy as His earlier remark ( ).

‏ Acts 23:2

Paul in Conflict With the High Priest

Paul turns to the Council and addresses them. He is not questioned first, but immediately takes the floor. He is on the same level as them, for they are both parties to the government represented by the commander. With his opening words “brethren”, he again makes clear the bond he has with them, he identifies himself with them and assures himself of their attention.

He begins with the testimony of a perfectly good conscience before God. He has always had this (2Tim 1:3), even when he persecuted the church. After all, he believed he was offering a service to God (Jn 16:2). It shows how relative the conscience is. His change, his conversion, has no consequences for the functioning of his conscience. Even after his conversion he did nothing else than what he was convinced of before God. He is always careful to keep his conscience free from any charge against himself (Acts 24:1).

A good conscience can be kept when one performs sincerely and severely everything to which this conscience instigates. At the same time, the conscience is a strictly personal matter. Only if it is subject to God’s Word can it function in a way that is a blessing to others and to the honor of God. Precisely because the conscience is so strongly personal, it is not a strong argument for defending a decision. It is very subjective and cannot be checked by anyone.

These words about his conscience are the only words Paul can say. He does not get a chance to say anything about the Lord Jesus. The high priest is very annoyed, possibly both by Paul’s promptness and by what Paul says. How dare this apostate Jew speak about a walk before God with a good conscience! He immediately wants the initiative back and takes it by ordering that Paul be forcibly silenced. When Paul hears this, he immediately reacts with a sharp remark. His answer is justified, but it does not reveal the gentleness of Christ (cf. Mk 14:60-62). The judgment Paul makes here has the character of a prophecy which, according to profane history, has also come true.

The expression which Paul uses for the high priest, “whitewashed wall”, he did not invent himself. He borrowed it from the prophet Ezekiel, who uses this expression for the hypocritical rulers of Israel who led the people astray (Eze 13:10; cf. Mt 23:27). Their manner of speaking resembled the use of white lime, which covered cracks and holes so that they could no longer be seen. Their words not only made the cracked state among the people invisible, but gave it a beautiful appearance. God, however, will reveal and judge this state of affairs.

The bystanders are outraged by the scolding of the high priest. To them, he is the high priest of God. Apparently the high priest is not dressed in his ministerial habit and therefore not recognizable as such for Paul. It is also possible that Paul did not see him well. He had bad eyes (Gal 4:15 ; Gal 6:11). Paul shows respect for the ministry, not for the man. Nor does he speak of ‘the high priest of God’.

However, he does accept the correction for his outburst because he is reminded inwardly of a word from Scripture (Exo 22:28). The Word brings Paul to confession. The quoted word is not about a high priest, but about someone who has authority over the people. The principle is general and therefore also applies to the high priest, because of his ministry, no matter how unworthy the man may behave in that ministry.

Paul does not try to put his statement into perspective by explaining the text differently. This is an example for us. What the Lord could say does not apply to him: “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” (Jn 8:46a). Nor would the Lord ever have to say: ‘I did not know.’ He answered the high priest in a perfectly dignified manner and for this He also received a slap in the face. His response was as perfectly worthy as His earlier remark (Jn 18:22-23).