Acts 22:27-30
Art thou a Roman? ( Συ Ρομαιος ει? ).Thou (emphatic position) a Roman? It was unbelievable.
With a great sum ( πολλου κεφαλαιου ). The use of κεφαλαιου (from κεφαλη, head) for sums of money (principal as distinct from interest) is old and frequent in the papyri. Our word capital is from χαπυτ (head). The genitive is used here according to rule for price. "The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship.
But I am a Roman born ( Εγω δε κα γεγεννημα ). Perfect passive indicative of γενναω. The word "Roman" not in the Greek. Literally, "But I have been even born one," (i.e. born a Roman citizen). There is calm and simple dignity in this reply and pardonable pride. Being a citizen of Tarsus (21:39) did not make Paul a Roman citizen. Tarsus was an urbs libera, not a colonia like Philippi. Some one of his ancestors (father, grandfather) obtained it perhaps as a reward for distinguished service. Paul's family was of good social position. "He was educated by the greatest of the Rabbis; he was at an early age entrusted by the Jewish authorities with an important commission; his nephew could gain ready access to the Roman tribune; he was treated as a person of consequence by Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Julius" (Furneaux).
Departed from him ( απεστησαν απ' αυτου ). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of αφιστημ, stood off from him at once.
Was afraid ( εφοβηθη ). Ingressive aorist passive indicative of φοβεομα, became afraid. He had reason to be.
That he was a Roman ( οτ Ρομαιος εστιν ). Indirect assertion with tense of εστιν retained.
Because he had bound him ( οτ αυτον ην δεδεκως ). Causal οτ here after declarative οτ just before. Periphrastic past perfect active of δεω, to bind.
To know the certainty ( γνωνα το ασφαλες ). Same idiom in 21:34 which see.
Wherefore he was accused ( το τ κατεγορειτα ). Epexegetical after to ασφαλες. Note article (accusative case) with the indirect question here as in Lu 22:1, 23, 24 (which see), a neat idiom in the Greek.
Commanded ( εκελευσεν ). So the Sanhedrin had to meet, but in the Tower of Antonia, for he brought Paul down ( καταγαγων, second aorist active participle of καταγω ).
Set him ( εστησεν ). First aorist active (transitive) indicative of ιστημ, not the intransitive second aorist εστη. Lysias is determined to find out the truth about Paul, more puzzled than ever by the important discovery that he has a Roman citizen on his hands in this strange prisoner.
Acts 23:1-6
Looking steadfastly ( ατενισας ). See on this word 1:10; 3:12; 6:15; 7:55; 13:9. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged.I have lived before God ( πεπολιτευμα τω θεω ). Perfect middle indicative of πολιτευω, old verb to manage affairs of city ( πολις ) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and Php 1:27. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth" (Rackham). God ( θεω ) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God.
In all good conscience unto this day ( παση συνειδησε αγαθη αχρ ταυτης της ημερας ). This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity's sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Ti 1:13-16). But that depends on one's interpretation of "good conscience." The word συνειδησις is literally "joint-knowledge" in Greek, Latin (conscientia) and English "conscience" from the Latin. It is a late word from συνοιδα, to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one's own thoughts (Heb 10:2), or of one's own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Ro 2:15) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Co 8:7, 10; 1Pe 2:19). The conscience can be contaminated (Heb 10:22, evil πονηρας ). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul's description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Ti 1:13-16). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies" (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God's commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Pe 3:16). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul's Epistles, but we see it at work in Joh 8:9 (the interpolation 7:53-8:11).
Ananias ( Hανανιας ). Not the one in Lu 3:2; Joh 18:13; Ac 4:7, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, A.D. 48 and till A.D. 59. He was called to Rome A.D. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted" (Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character.
Them that stood by him ( τοις παρεστωσιν αυτω ). Dative case of second perfect participle of παριστημ, to place, and intransitive. See the same form in verse 4 ( παρεστωτες ).
To smite him on the mouth ( τυπτειν αυτου το στομα ). See on 12:45; 18:17. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (Joh 18:22). Ananias was provoked by Paul's self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew" (Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Lu 6:29 where τυπτω is also used).
Thou whited wall ( τοιχε κεκονιαμενε ). Perfect passive participle of κονιαω (from κονια, dust or lime). The same word used in Mt 23:27 for "whited sepulchres" ( ταφο κεκονιαμενο ) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word τυπτειν (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence ( τυπτειν σε μελλε ο θεος ) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God's commonwealth.
And sittest thou to judge me? ( Κα συ καθη κρινων με? ) Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting ( καθη, second person singular middle of καθημα, late form for καθησα, the uncontracted form) judging me." Cf. Lu 22:30. Κα συ at the beginning of a question expresses indignation.
Contrary to the law ( παρανομων ). Present active participle of παρανομεω, old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."
Of God ( του θεου ). As God's representative in spite of his bad character (De 17:8f.). Here was a charge of irreverence, to say the least. The office called for respect.
I wist not ( ουκ ηιδειν ). Second past perfect of οιδα used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from Ex 22:18 (LXX) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Pe 2:23) when smitten on the cheek (Joh 18:22), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.
But when Paul perceived ( γνους δε ο Παυλος ). Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of γινωσκω ). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other." So Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar condemns Paul and takes 24:21 as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee.
I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees ( Εγω Φαρισαιος ειμ υιος Φαρισαιων ). This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Php 3:5).
Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question ( περ ελπιδος κα αναστασεως νεκρων κρινομα ). This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in 24:21. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke's report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul's cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith" (Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Ac 5:34-39). So then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism" (Page). Paul shows this in Ga 3; Ro 9-11.
Copyright information for
RWP