Acts · Chapter 23

V. 1. And Paul earnestly beholding the council-Professing a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question, said,

I have lived in all good conscience before God till this day-He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet even in his unconverted state, although he was in an error, yet he had acted from conscience, before God-Whatever men may think or say of me.

Verse 1. I have lived in all good conscience] Some people seem to have been unnecessarily stumbled with this expression. What does the apostle mean by it? Why, that, while he was a Jew, he was one from principle of conscience; that what he did, while he continued Jew, he did from the same principle; that, when God opened his eyes to see the nature of Christianity, he became a Christian, because God persuaded his conscience that it was right for him to become one; that, in a word, he was sincere through the whole course of his religious life, and his conduct had borne the most unequivocal proofs of it. The apostle means, therefore, that there was no part of his life in which he acted as a dishonest or hypocritical man; and that he was now as fully determined to maintain his profession of Christianity as he ever was to maintain that of Judaism, previously to his acquaintance with the Christian religion.

Verses 1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council — At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren — Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God — The Searcher of hearts; until this day — Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias — Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him — At the bar; to smite him on the mouth — For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul — Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, tuptein se mellei, is about to smite thee, thou whited wall — Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by — Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest — Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren — Ouk hdei oti estin arciereuv, I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest — That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years’ absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananias’s dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.”

1. Earnestly beholding—Scanning the assembly with an intent gaze, to analyze its elements and discover by what method he may again master the crisis, Paul probably recognises some old acquaintances. He notes, probably, those who are his bitterest enemies. The presiding chiliarch, now anxious about his mistake in binding him, is essentially his friend, and has near by a sufficient protective military force. Paul, therefore, feels himself on high ground, and determines to take a bold initiative. Men… brethren—He omits fathers, as used in Acts 22:1, and calls them in effect brethren, or equals, and not superiors. Lived—Greek, “I have conducted as a citizen,” or exercised my citizenship.

Verse 2. The high priest, Ananias] There was a high priest of this name, who was sent a prisoner to Rome by Quadratus, governor of Syria, to give an account of the part he took in the quarrel between the Jews and the Samaritans; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6, s. 8; but whether he ever returned again to Jerusalem, says Dr. Lightfoot, is uncertain; still more uncertain whether he was ever restored to the office of high priest; and most uncertain of all whether he filled the chair when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix was settled in the government. But Krebs has proved that this very Ananias, on being examined at Rome, was found innocent, returned to Jerusalem, and was restored to the high priesthood; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 9, s. 2; but of his death I find nothing certain. See Krebs on this place, (Observat. in Nov. Testament. e Flavio Josepho,) who successfully controverts the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, mentioned at the beginning of this note. There was one Ananias, who is said to have perished in a tumult raised by his own son about five years after this time; see Jos. Antiq. lib. x. cap. 9. War, lib. ii. cap. 17. To smite him on the mouth.] Because he professed to have a good conscience, while believing on Jesus Christ, and propagating his doctrine.

Verses 1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council — At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren — Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God — The Searcher of hearts; until this day — Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias — Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him — At the bar; to smite him on the mouth — For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul — Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, tuptein se mellei, is about to smite thee, thou whited wall — Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by — Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest — Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren — Ouk hdei oti estin arciereuv, I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest — That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years’ absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananias’s dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.”

Verse 2. Smite him on the mouth. Ananias the highpriest commanded this, when he heard Paul profess a good conscience, and determined to persevere in preaching Christ. So Ahab commanded Micaiah to be smitten, and so Pashur smote Jeremiah.

2. Commanded… to smite him—The high priest is left in his passion to inflict the usual Eastern penalty of criminal or impertinent speech upon this servant of Christ, an outrage which will draw forth a monitory prediction of his own violent end.

This Ananias was the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed to the high priesthood by Herod, king of Chalcis. (See our Hist. Revelation at 21:17, §§ 1, 2, and 3.) He was assassinated by the Sicarii, about five years afterward.

V. 3. Then said Paul-Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse.

God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall-Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage, while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain.

Verse 3. God shall smite thee, thou whited wall] Thou hypocrite! who sittest on the seat of judgment, pretending to hear and seriously weigh the defense of an accused person, who must in justice and equity be presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty; and, instead of acting according to the law, commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law, which always has the person of the prisoner under its protection; nor ever suffers any penalty to be inflicted but what is prescribed as the just punishment for the offense. As if he had said: “Thinkest thou that God will suffer such an insult on his laws, on justice, and on humanity, to pass unpunished?”

Verses 1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council — At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren — Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God — The Searcher of hearts; until this day — Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias — Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him — At the bar; to smite him on the mouth — For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul — Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, tuptein se mellei, is about to smite thee, thou whited wall — Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by — Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest — Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren — Ouk hdei oti estin arciereuv, I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest — That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years’ absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananias’s dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.”

3. God shall smite thee—Shall is used as often for will, to express a simple future tense. Literally, God is about to smite thee. This is not an imprecation, but a warning to this man, which the apostle was empowered to pronounce to him, of the violent termination impending over the continuance of his violent career. Whited wall—Like whited sepulchres, a phrase used by the Master, who here sustained Paul, of precisely such characters as Ananias. This epithet refers to inward coarseness and vileness, covered with an outside polish, which belonged both to a wall and to the highpriestly hypocrite.

Verses 1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council — At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren — Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God — The Searcher of hearts; until this day — Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias — Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him — At the bar; to smite him on the mouth — For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul — Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, tuptein se mellei, is about to smite thee, thou whited wall — Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by — Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest — Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren — Ouk hdei oti estin arciereuv, I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest — That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years’ absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananias’s dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.”

4. God’s high priest—Not only the informality of this assemblage, (see note on ver. 1 and Acts 22:30,) but the previous excitements of its members, and the riot with which it broke up, indicate that Ananias occupied no seat of honour, and wore no costume to distinguish him from the crowd. His person was unknown to Paul, who had long been absent from Jerusalem. When, then, he ordered Paul to be smitten, he not only committed a violence for which he had there and then no authority, but there was no sign to indicate to Paul that the order was given by a ruler in due authority.

V. 5. I was not aware, brethren, that it was the high priest-He seems to mean, I did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of my mind: but he does not add, that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him; as knowing they were not able to bear it. This answer admirably shows the situation of mind he was then in, partly with regard to the bystanders, whom he thus softens, adding also the title of brethren, and justifying their reproof by the prohibition of Moses; partly with regard to himself, who, after that singular transport subsided, was again under the direction of the general command. Exodus 22:28.

Verse 5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest] After all the learned labour that has been spent on this subject, the simple meaning appears plainly to be this:-

St. Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest; he had been long absent from Jerusalem; political changes were frequent; the high priesthood was no longer in succession, and was frequently bought and sold; the Romans put down one high priest, and raised up another, as political reasons dictated. As the person of Ananias might have been wholly unknown to him, as the hearing was very sudden, and there was scarcely any time to consult the formalities of justice, it seems very probable that St. Paul, if he ever had known the person of Ananias, had forgotten him; and as, in a council or meeting of this kind, the presence of the high priest was not indispensably necessary, he did not know that the person who presided was not the sagan, or high priest’s deputy, or some other person put in the seat for the time being. I therefore understand the words above in their most obvious and literal sense. He knew not who the person was, and God’s Spirit suddenly led him to denounce the Divine displeasure against him.

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.] If I had known he was the high priest, I should not have publicly pronounced this execration; for respect is due to his person for the sake of his office. I do not see that Paul intimates that he had done any thing through inadvertence; nor does he here confess any fault; he states two facts:-1. That he did not know him to be the high priest. 2. That such a one, or any ruler of the people, should be reverenced. But he neither recalled or made an apology for his words: he had not committed a trespass, and he did not acknowledge one. We must beware how we attribute either to him in the case before us.

Verses 1-5. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council — At whose bar he was placed; manifesting a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question; said, Men and brethren — Though I am brought before you as a malefactor, to be examined and judged by you, I have the comfort of being conscious to myself that I have lived in all good conscience before God — The Searcher of hearts; until this day — Whatever men may think or say of me. He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet, even in his unconverted state, although he was in error, yet he had acted from conscience before God. And the high-priest Ananias — Conscious of his inveterate enmity to Paul, and of the steps he had openly taken for his destruction, thinking himself insulted by such a solemn declaration of his innocence; commanded them that stood by him — At the bar; to smite him on the mouth — For what he represented as a most insolent assertion; which was accordingly done. Then said Paul — Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse; God, tuptein se mellei, is about to smite thee, thou whited wall — Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice, but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where, having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain. And they that stood by — Being greatly offended; said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest — Dost thou, who pretendest to so much religion, presume impiously to revile the most sacred person in our nation, and consequently in the whole world? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren — Ouk hdei oti estin arciereuv, I knew not, or, had not known; that he is the high-priest — That is, (as many understand him,) he did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of his mind, that Ananias was the high-priest. But he does not say that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him, as knowing that they were not able to bear it. But is it not more probable that his positive assertion here was the exact truth; and that, in fact, he did not know Ananias to be the high-priest? For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “Both the Roman governors and the Jewish princes had, for some time past, been in use to sell the high-priesthood to the best bidder; and sometimes to depose the person in office, that they might have it to sell anew. Wherefore, as Paul was but lately come from Greece, after five years’ absence, he may very well be supposed to have been ignorant of Ananias’s dignity, notwithstanding he might know him personally. It is alleged, indeed, that by his dress and seat in the council, Paul might have known Ananias to be the high-priest. But that does not seem probable; because, having looked steadfastly on the council at his first coming in, he would, by such an excuse, have exposed himself to ridicule, if Ananias could have been known to be the high-priest, either by his dress, or by his seat in the council.”

Ver. 5. I wist not, brethren, that he was the highpriest. Doubts are entertained whether arciereuv may not designate the sagan or second priest; if so, Josephus and St. Luke may be easily reconciled. Be that as it may, Paul had a long time been away from Jerusalem; and rulers on this hasty occasion did not sit in form and appear in the costume of office. However, what he said was prophetic. God smote this unworthy man first, and all the others by the Romans when Jerusalem was taken. Josephus reports, in his Antiquities of the jews, Acts 20:5, that Ananias the highpriest was sent in chains to Rome, to give an account to Cæsar for his maladministration. Perhaps Paul, when he called the highpriest a “whited wall,” had our Saviour’s words of painted sepulchres in his eye. Prophets and martyrs, full of the Holy Ghost, use awful words to the wicked. 2 Kings 21:17, 22. Acts 7:51, 52. Perhaps he was the Ananias killed in the insurrection five years after by his own son.

5. I wist not—Paul virtually concedes that had he known his assailant he would not have uttered the remark. But he does not concede that the warning did not fit the man; nor is he able to say that the arrow is not divinely directed to hit its mark.

Some commentators upon Paul’s words have made him confess his wrong spirit by saying, “I did not in my haste consider that he was high priest;” others make him say, I do not recognise such a tyrant as a true high priest; others suppose that he was looking in another direction, and was not aware that it was Ananias who ordered the smiting. Alford absurdly supposes that St. Paul’s thorn in the flesh was a weakness of the eyes, so that he recognised not the high priest; and Lewin maintains that Ananias was in fact not a lawful high priest. Our interpretation, if correct, takes the words in their most natural sense, furnishes obvious reasons for Paul’s personal mistake, yet subjects him to no moral charge, and preserves the prophetic import of his utterance. Written—(See Exodus 22:28.) Paul Divides the Assembly, and is Rescued by the Chiliarch. Verse 9 indicates that Paul’s yesterday’s speech on the stairs, with its strong avowal of his original Phariseeism, had made its impression on some of the Pharisees who heard it, and that they were seeking for some construction of Paul’s vision of Christ as would make it allowable that “a spirit or an angel hath spoken unto him.”

V. 6. I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: for the hope of the resurrection of the dead am I called in question-So he was in effect; although not formally, or explicitly.

Verse 6. I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee] Instead of farisaiou, of a Pharisee, ABC, some others, with the Syriac and Vulgate, have farisaiwn, of the Pharisees; which, if acknowledged to be the genuine reading, would alter the sense thus, I am a Pharisee, and a disciple of the Pharisees, for so the word son is frequently understood. Of the hope and resurrection] Concerning the hope of the resurrection, the kai, and, being here redundant; indeed, it is omitted by the Syriac, all the Arabic, and Æthiopic. St. Paul had preached the resurrection of the dead, on the foundation and evidence of the resurrection of Christ. For this, he and the apostles were, some time before, imprisoned by the high priest and elders, Acts 4:1-3; 5:17, because they preached, THROUGH JESUS, the resurrection of the dead. This they could not bear; for, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, their malice and wickedness, in putting him to death, were incontrovertibly established.

Verses 6-8. But when Paul perceived — Gnouv de o Paulov, Paul knowing, in consequence of his being personally acquainted with many whom he saw sitting round; that one part of the council were Pharisees, and the other Sadducees, cried out, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee — I am such both by birth and education, as also by my own free choice, having voluntarily attached myself to that sect: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Meaning, that he was brought before them as a criminal for preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as a proof of the resurrection of all the dead at the last day. Certainly this was a principal part (though not the whole) of the truth, since the chief thing which enraged the Sadducees against Christianity, was the demonstration it gave to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they so eagerly opposed. When he had so said, there arose a dissension — A disagreement and contention producing a separation between the Pharisees and Sadducees, several persons of each sect becoming warm in the debate. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection — Of the dead. See on Matthew 22:23. Neither angel nor separate spirit — It seems strange that the Sadducees should deny that there were angels, considering that they acknowledged the authority of the five books of Moses, in which mention is frequently made of angels; but it seems they either understood the passages that speak of angels, in those books, allegorically, or, as Dr. Whitby observes, supposed that when they are said to appear, they were framed at that particular time for that purpose, and afterward ceased to have any being: so that, after the giving of the law, at least, no angel existed. And with regard to their denying the existence of spirits, the meaning probably is, not that they denied God to be a spirit, or that there was any spirit in man, but, as Josephus testifies, they denied, thv yuchv thn diamonhn, the permanency of the soul after death, or, that any spirits existed in a state of separation from men’s bodies. But the Pharisees confess both — Both the resurrection and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

6. I am a Pharisee—It is sometimes said that this statement of Paul was false. Yet his additional words, the son of a Pharisee, gave fair warning that he applied the term Pharisee to himself in a modified sense. On that point of the variation between himself and the Pharisees he had yesterday fully and frankly explained himself. Not merely may we say that on the points of division between the Pharisees and Sadducees he was with the former; but Paul might say that he was the truest and most consistent Pharisee present; that a true Phariseeism, being orthodox Judaism, ought by its own premises to develop into Christianity. Son of a Pharisee—The preferable reading is, the son of Pharisees; that is, the descendant of a Pharisaic lineage. The hope—Probably this word is a term for the Messiah. (See note on 26:6.)

Verse 7. And the multitude was divided] St. Paul, perceiving the assembly to consist of Sadducees and Pharisees, and finding he was not to expect any justice, thought it best thus to divide the council, by introducing a question on which the Pharisees and Sadducees were at issue. He did so; and the Pharisees immediately espoused his side of the question, because in opposition to the Sadducees, whom they abhorred, as irreligious men.

Verses 6-8. But when Paul perceived — Gnouv de o Paulov, Paul knowing, in consequence of his being personally acquainted with many whom he saw sitting round; that one part of the council were Pharisees, and the other Sadducees, cried out, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee — I am such both by birth and education, as also by my own free choice, having voluntarily attached myself to that sect: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Meaning, that he was brought before them as a criminal for preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as a proof of the resurrection of all the dead at the last day. Certainly this was a principal part (though not the whole) of the truth, since the chief thing which enraged the Sadducees against Christianity, was the demonstration it gave to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they so eagerly opposed. When he had so said, there arose a dissension — A disagreement and contention producing a separation between the Pharisees and Sadducees, several persons of each sect becoming warm in the debate. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection — Of the dead. See on Matthew 22:23. Neither angel nor separate spirit — It seems strange that the Sadducees should deny that there were angels, considering that they acknowledged the authority of the five books of Moses, in which mention is frequently made of angels; but it seems they either understood the passages that speak of angels, in those books, allegorically, or, as Dr. Whitby observes, supposed that when they are said to appear, they were framed at that particular time for that purpose, and afterward ceased to have any being: so that, after the giving of the law, at least, no angel existed. And with regard to their denying the existence of spirits, the meaning probably is, not that they denied God to be a spirit, or that there was any spirit in man, but, as Josephus testifies, they denied, thv yuchv thn diamonhn, the permanency of the soul after death, or, that any spirits existed in a state of separation from men’s bodies. But the Pharisees confess both — Both the resurrection and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

Ver. 7. There arose a dissension between the pharisees and the sadducees; the old dissension, of which we have before spoken. Deuteronomy 31:16. Matthew 22:23. This contest led to open outrage; and the commandant most humanely hurried away Paul, lest he should be torn to pieces.

7. Divided—Paul aimed not merely to divide and conquer, but to gain a part of the audience.

V. 8. The Pharisees confess both-Both the resurrection, and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

Verse 8. The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection] It is strange, since these denied a future state, that they observed the ordinances of the law; for they also believed the five books of Moses to be a revelation from God: yet they had nothing in view but temporal good; and they understood the promises in the law as referring to these things alone. In order, therefore, to procure them, they watched, fasted, prayed, &c., and all this they did that they might obtain happiness in the present life. See the account of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew 3:7; 16:1.

Verses 6-8. But when Paul perceived — Gnouv de o Paulov, Paul knowing, in consequence of his being personally acquainted with many whom he saw sitting round; that one part of the council were Pharisees, and the other Sadducees, cried out, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee — I am such both by birth and education, as also by my own free choice, having voluntarily attached myself to that sect: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question — Meaning, that he was brought before them as a criminal for preaching the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as a proof of the resurrection of all the dead at the last day. Certainly this was a principal part (though not the whole) of the truth, since the chief thing which enraged the Sadducees against Christianity, was the demonstration it gave to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they so eagerly opposed. When he had so said, there arose a dissension — A disagreement and contention producing a separation between the Pharisees and Sadducees, several persons of each sect becoming warm in the debate. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection — Of the dead. See on Matthew 22:23. Neither angel nor separate spirit — It seems strange that the Sadducees should deny that there were angels, considering that they acknowledged the authority of the five books of Moses, in which mention is frequently made of angels; but it seems they either understood the passages that speak of angels, in those books, allegorically, or, as Dr. Whitby observes, supposed that when they are said to appear, they were framed at that particular time for that purpose, and afterward ceased to have any being: so that, after the giving of the law, at least, no angel existed. And with regard to their denying the existence of spirits, the meaning probably is, not that they denied God to be a spirit, or that there was any spirit in man, but, as Josephus testifies, they denied, thv yuchv thn diamonhn, the permanency of the soul after death, or, that any spirits existed in a state of separation from men’s bodies. But the Pharisees confess both — Both the resurrection and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

Ver. 8. The sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit. This sect claimed Sadoc for their founder, as also did the Baithusians; but it is doubted whether Sadoc himself went quite so far. Perhaps he only objected to serve God from motives of self-love, — the rewards of the life to come; or to serve him with the fears and terrors of a future world. How preposterous for this sect to receive the five books of Moses, and reject the prophets. Is not the Genesis built on the belief of a world of spirits? “Ye shall be as gods, or as angels in the likeness of God.” Genesis 3:5. 5:1. Is not the whole history of Abraham, who looked for a better country, coincident with this belief? Is not the strong command of Joseph concerning his bones, and all other funeral honours founded on the hope of the resurrection? What else was the faith of Jacob, who ascribed his whole preservation to the good angel of the Lord that had redeemed him from all evil and mischief? What books could be stronger against them than the Pentateuch of Moses? Deuteronomy 31:16.

8. Both—This both includes the resurrection on one side, and angel or spirit on the other.

V. 9. And the scribes of the Pharisees' side arising-Every sect contains both learned and unlearned. The former used to be the mouth of the party. If a spirit-St. Paul in his speech from the stairs had affirmed, that Jesus, whom they knew to have been dead, was alive, and that he had spoken to him from heaven, and again in a vision. So they add nothing, only they construe it in their own way, putting an angel or spirit for Jesus.

Verse 9. The scribes-arose, and strove] diemaconto, They contended forcibly-they came to an open rupture with the Sadducees; and, in order to support their own party against them, they even admitted as truth, St. Paul’s account of his miraculous conversion, and therefore they said, if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, &c. He had previously mentioned that Jesus Christ had appeared to him, when on his way to Damascus; and, though they might not be ready to admit the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection, yet they could, consistently with their own principles, allow that the soul of Christ might appear to him; and they immediately caught at this, as furnishing a strong proof against the doctrine of the Sadducees, who neither believed in angel nor spirit, while the Pharisees confessed both. Let us not fight against God.] These words are wanting in ABCE, several others, with the Coptic, Æthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac, Vulgate, and some of the fathers.

Verse 9. And there arose a great cry — A great clamour and quarrel, so that the edge of their zeal began to turn from Paul against one another. Nor could they go on to act against him, when they could not agree among themselves, or prosecute him for breaking the unity of the church, when there was among them so little of the unity of the Spirit. All the cry had been against Paul: but now there arose a great cry against one another; and so much did a fierce, furious spirit prevail among all orders of the Jews at this time, that every thing was done, even respecting religion, with clamour, tumult, and noise. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ part arose and strove — In the prisoner’s defence. Every sect contains both learned and unlearned: the former of which are usually the mouth of the party; saying, We find no evil in this man — And can see no reason for his being condemned or detained; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken unto him — In the manner he represents, let us acquiesce, and wait the event, and not fight against God — Which must end in our ruin. They allude to what Paul had affirmed in his speech from the stairs, that Jesus, whom they knew to have been dead, was alive, and had appeared and spoken unto him in his way to Damascus, and again in a vision. This they interpret of an angel or spirit appearing to him; not allowing that the person whom they had crucified was really risen from the dead.

9. Great cry—That a part of the assembly should favour Paul excited almost as fierce a clamour against them as had arisen against Paul himself. Arose—First there was an outcry; then the Pharisaic Scribes started up from their seats and boldly took sides with Paul. Strove—Literally, fought; that is, they used physical force to rescue Paul from the onset of the Sadducees. It is probable that Ananias was on the Sadducean side. Let us not fight against God—This clause is probably spurious. The sentence really terminates abruptly and unfinished at the word him. Conybeare and Howson ingeniously suggest that the rest of the sentence is lost in the clamour.

6. Paul Rescued and sent to Cesarea, 10-35.

Verse 10. The chief captain-commanded the soldiers to go down] It appears that the chief captain was present during these transactions, and that he had a body of soldiers in readiness in the castle of Antonia; and it was from this that he commanded them to come down; for the rescue and preservation of Paul.

Verses 10, 11. And when there arose a great dissension — Some of them urging that he ought to be set at liberty, while others eagerly insisted on his condemnation; the chief captain, fearing — On being informed of their disorderly proceedings; lest he should be pulled in pieces of them — Amidst the tumult; commanded a party of soldiers to go down — From the garrison; to take him by force from among them — Out of that apartment in the temple where he had ordered them to meet; and to bring him into the castle Antonia — “What must this heathen have thought of the worshippers of JEHOVAH, when he saw this assembly of chief priests, learned scribes, and rulers of Israel, forgetful of what became their rank, profession, and sacred character; and carried away by such unbridled rage, in their religious contests, as the Roman senators and magistrates, or principal persons, would have been ashamed of, even in their eager competition for authority and pre-eminence?” — Scott. And the night following the Lord stood by him — Appeared to him in a vision; And said, Be of good cheer, Paul — As he laboured under singular distresses and persecutions, so he was favoured with extraordinary assurances of the divine assistance. For as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem — And all the malice of the Jews has not prevented thee from faithfully discharging thy commission; so must thou bear witness also at Rome — Thus God now, in due time, confirms what Paul had before purposed in spirit, Acts 19:21. Another declaration to the same effect is made by an angel of God, Acts 27:23; particular promises being usually given when all things appear dark and desperate. For difficulties and dangers are nothing in the eyes of God; all hinderances only further his work; and a promise of what is afar off, implies all that necessarily lies between. Paul shall testify at Rome; therefore he shall come to Rome; therefore he shall escape the Jews, the sea, and the viper. He shall be brought safe through all intervening obstacles, dangers, and distresses, that he may bear testimony to the Romans. How would the defenders of Peter’s supremacy triumph, could they find but half as much ascribed to him!

10. Great dissension—Paul is imminently likely to be divided between the divided assembly. But Lysias is fully satisfied that Paul’s only offence is a religious dissent from the Sanhedric doctrines, which, as a Greek-Roman, he considers but a fancy crime, and he thereupon evidently purposes that their designs to murder him shall not be of easy accomplishment. (Verse 29.) A second time does unconscious Gentilism rescue her great apostle from fallen Judaism.

V. 11. And the night following, the Lord Jesus-What Paul had before purposed in spirit, Acts 19:21, God now in due time confirms. Another declaration to the same effect is made by an angel of God, Acts 27:23. And from the 23d chapter the sum of this book turns on the testimony of Paul to the Romans. How would the defenders of St. Peter's supremacy triumph, could they find out half as much ascribed to him! Be of good courage, Paul-As he laboured under singular distresses and persecutions, so he was favoured with extraordinary assurances of the Divine assistance.

Thou must testify-Particular promises are usually given when all things appear desperate.

At Rome also-Danger is nothing in the eyes of God: all hinderances farther his work. A promise of what is afar off, implies all that necessarily lies between. Paul shall testify at Rome: therefore he shall come to Rome; therefore he shall escape the Jews, the sea, the viper.

Verse 11. Be of good cheer, Paul] It is no wonder if, with all these trials and difficulties, St. Paul was much dejected in mind; and especially as he had not any direct intimation from God what the end of the present trials would be: to comfort him and strengthen his faith, God gave him this vision.

So must thou bear witness also at Rome.] This was pleasing intelligence to Paul, who had long desired to see that city, and preach the Gospel of Christ there. He appears to have had an intimation that he should see it; but how, he could not tell; and this vision satisfied him that he should be sent thither by God himself. This would settle every fear and scruple concerning the issue of the present persecution.

Verses 10, 11. And when there arose a great dissension — Some of them urging that he ought to be set at liberty, while others eagerly insisted on his condemnation; the chief captain, fearing — On being informed of their disorderly proceedings; lest he should be pulled in pieces of them — Amidst the tumult; commanded a party of soldiers to go down — From the garrison; to take him by force from among them — Out of that apartment in the temple where he had ordered them to meet; and to bring him into the castle Antonia — “What must this heathen have thought of the worshippers of JEHOVAH, when he saw this assembly of chief priests, learned scribes, and rulers of Israel, forgetful of what became their rank, profession, and sacred character; and carried away by such unbridled rage, in their religious contests, as the Roman senators and magistrates, or principal persons, would have been ashamed of, even in their eager competition for authority and pre-eminence?” — Scott. And the night following the Lord stood by him — Appeared to him in a vision; And said, Be of good cheer, Paul — As he laboured under singular distresses and persecutions, so he was favoured with extraordinary assurances of the divine assistance. For as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem — And all the malice of the Jews has not prevented thee from faithfully discharging thy commission; so must thou bear witness also at Rome — Thus God now, in due time, confirms what Paul had before purposed in spirit, Acts 19:21. Another declaration to the same effect is made by an angel of God, Acts 27:23; particular promises being usually given when all things appear dark and desperate. For difficulties and dangers are nothing in the eyes of God; all hinderances only further his work; and a promise of what is afar off, implies all that necessarily lies between. Paul shall testify at Rome; therefore he shall come to Rome; therefore he shall escape the Jews, the sea, and the viper. He shall be brought safe through all intervening obstacles, dangers, and distresses, that he may bear testimony to the Romans. How would the defenders of Peter’s supremacy triumph, could they find but half as much ascribed to him!

Ver. 11. The night following the Lord stood by him, supporting and comforting him; for he must go as a state prisoner, and bear witness of him at Rome. Here the Lord Christ was with his servant in the fiery trial. The bar of Cæsar was his only retreat from foes so powerful; and Rome was the city which Paul had long desired to see.

11. Night following—Exhausted with the past two days’ excitements, alone in the desolate barracks, does the blessed Jesus find and console his faithful confessor. Has the lonely advocate for his Lord any misgivings that unholy passion has stained his record that day? This Be of good cheer assures his spirit on that point, and infuses within him the freshness of a new life.

Conspiracy, and its Disclosure, 12-22.

V. 12. Some of the Jews bound themselves-Such execrable vows were not uncommon among the Jews. And if they were prevented from accomplishing what they had vowed, it was an easy matter to obtain absolution from their rabbis.

Verse 12. That they would neither eat nor drink, &c.] These forty Jews were no doubt of the class of the sicarii mentioned before, (similar to those afterwards called assassins,) a class of fierce zealots, who took justice into their own hand; and who thought they had a right to despatch all those who, according to their views, were not orthodox in their religious principles. If these were, in their bad way, conscientious men, must they not all perish through hunger, as God put it out of their power to accomplish their vow? No: for the doctrine of sacerdotal absolution was held among the Jews as among the Papists: hence it is said, in Hieros. Avodah Zarah, fol. 40: “He that hath made a vow not to eat any thing, wo to him, if he eat; and wo to him, if he do not eat. If he eat, he sinneth against his vow; and if he do not eat, he sinneth against his life.” What must such a man do in this case? Let him go to the wise men, and they will loose him from his vow, as it is written, Proverbs 12:18: “The tongue of the wise is health.” When vows were so easily dispensed with, they might be readily multiplied. See Lightfoot.

Verses 12, 13. And when it was day, certain of the Jews — Being exceedingly provoked that Paul had been thus rescued from the council; bound themselves under a curse — Such execrable vows were not uncommon among the Jews. And if they were prevented from

accomplishing what they had vowed, it was an easy matter, as Dr. Lightfoot has shown from the Talmud, to obtain absolution from their rabbis; saying — Vowing; That they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul — Imprecating the heaviest curses upon themselves, their souls, bodies, and families, if they did not kill him, and so speedily, that they would not eat or drink till they had done it. What a complication of wickedness is here! To design to kill an innocent man, a good and useful man, a man that had done them no harm, but was willing and desirous to do them all the good he could, was going in the way of Cain most manifestly, and showed them to be of their father the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. Yet, as if this had been a small matter, 1st, They bound themselves to it in a most awful manner. To incline to do evil is bad, and to intend and purpose to do it is worse; but to engage to do it, especially in such a manner as these Jews here did, is worst of all. It is entering into covenant with the devil; it is swearing allegiance to the prince of darkness; it is bidding defiance to a holy and just God. 2d, They bound one another to it, even more than forty of them, and thus did all they could, not only to secure the damnation of their own souls, but of the souls of all them whom they drew into the association. 3d, They showed a great contempt of the providence of God, and a presumption upon it, in that they bound themselves to do a thing, and that so dreadfully wicked, within so short a space of time as they could continue fasting; without any proviso or reserve for the disposal of an overruling providence; without saying, or thinking, “If the Lord will.” But, indeed, with what face could they insert a proviso for the permission of God’s providence, when they knew what they were about to do was directly contrary to the prohibitions of his word? 4th, They showed a great contempt of their own souls and bodies; of their souls, in imprecating a curse upon them if they did not proceed in this desperate enterprise; thus throwing themselves upon a most woful dilemma! for God certainly meets them with his curse if they proceed in their design, and they desire he would if they do not! and of their own bodies too, (for wilful sinners are the destroyers of both,) in tying themselves up from the necessary supports of life till they had accomplished a thing, which they could never lawfully, and perhaps not possibly, accomplish.

12. Under a curse—By the Jewish anathema a thing was sacredly devoted to God, either for service or for retribution and destruction. The form of the resolution was, “According to my oath I will neither eat nor drink; whose eats or drinks is a double criminal.” But how could they escape starvation in case of failure? Chrysostom keenly says, “Then they were forever cursed; for they did not kill Paul.” But Lightfoot shows that the rabbies had the spiritual power to play pope and absolve them from their vow. Says the Talmud, “To a man that has vowed to abstain from food and drink, woe if he eats, and woe if he drinks; if he eats, he breaks his vow; if he eats not, he destroys his life. What then must he do? Let him go to the rabbies, and they will release him from his vow?” A similar conspiracy and oath were undertaken by ten Jews against Herod with similar failure.

Verses 12, 13. And when it was day, certain of the Jews — Being exceedingly provoked that Paul had been thus rescued from the council; bound themselves under a curse — Such execrable vows were not uncommon among the Jews. And if they were prevented from

accomplishing what they had vowed, it was an easy matter, as Dr. Lightfoot has shown from the Talmud, to obtain absolution from their rabbis; saying — Vowing; That they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul — Imprecating the heaviest curses upon themselves, their souls, bodies, and families, if they did not kill him, and so speedily, that they would not eat or drink till they had done it. What a complication of wickedness is here! To design to kill an innocent man, a good and useful man, a man that had done them no harm, but was willing and desirous to do them all the good he could, was going in the way of Cain most manifestly, and showed them to be of their father the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. Yet, as if this had been a small matter, 1st, They bound themselves to it in a most awful manner. To incline to do evil is bad, and to intend and purpose to do it is worse; but to engage to do it, especially in such a manner as these Jews here did, is worst of all. It is entering into covenant with the devil; it is swearing allegiance to the prince of darkness; it is bidding defiance to a holy and just God. 2d, They bound one another to it, even more than forty of them, and thus did all they could, not only to secure the damnation of their own souls, but of the souls of all them whom they drew into the association. 3d, They showed a great contempt of the providence of God, and a presumption upon it, in that they bound themselves to do a thing, and that so dreadfully wicked, within so short a space of time as they could continue fasting; without any proviso or reserve for the disposal of an overruling providence; without saying, or thinking, “If the Lord will.” But, indeed, with what face could they insert a proviso for the permission of God’s providence, when they knew what they were about to do was directly contrary to the prohibitions of his word? 4th, They showed a great contempt of their own souls and bodies; of their souls, in imprecating a curse upon them if they did not proceed in this desperate enterprise; thus throwing themselves upon a most woful dilemma! for God certainly meets them with his curse if they proceed in their design, and they desire he would if they do not! and of their own bodies too, (for wilful sinners are the destroyers of both,) in tying themselves up from the necessary supports of life till they had accomplished a thing, which they could never lawfully, and perhaps not possibly, accomplish.

Verses 14, 15. And they came to the chief priests and elders — Who were of the sect of the Sadducees, and Paul’s greatest enemies, telling them what they had done; and desiring them to ask the chief captain to bring Paul down to the council on the morrow, as if they wished to inquire something more perfectly concerning him, and we, (said they,) or ever he come near, are ready to kill him — And we will manage the attack in such a manner, that you shall not appear at all concerned in it; nor have any alarm about the matter, till you hear that he is actually dead. Josephus mentions a case not much unlike this, of some that bound themselves with an oath to kill Herod; in which they gloried as a laudable intention, because he had violated the ancient customs of their nation. It is no wonder, therefore, that these Jews should make no scruple of acquainting the chief priests and elders with their conspiracy against the life of Paul; who, indeed, were so far from blaming them for it, that not long after they renewed the same design themselves. See Acts 25:2, 3.

Ver. 14. They came to the chief priests and elders, to display their zeal, that the curse should rest upon them, (and that curse was death, as when Saul would have killed Jonathan for tasting honey) if they either ate or drank till they had killed Paul. The council at once approved, as though their zeal had been hallowed like the zeal of Phinehas, who slew Zimri the prince, and Cozbi his harlot. Numbers 25. Oh tempora: oh mores! Those more than forty assassins might next have tried their skill against the council; for every man who consents to blood, is guilty of blood. See on Acts 21:37.

14. Chief priests and elders—Those high dignitaries would not reject such assassination. Taking advantage of the extraordinary example of Phineas, son of Eleazer, the gravest Jewish writers, the Talmud, Josephus, and Philo, maintain the right of summary assassination of apostates from God. Thus the last of these writers, as quoted by Hackett, says, “All who have a zeal for virtue should have a right to punish with their own hands, without delay, those who are guilty of this crime; not carrying them before a court, council; or magistrate, but regarding themselves for the time as judges and executioners.” These appalling authorizations of assassination of course would lead to the dissolution of society. The Sicarii, encouraged by Felix and by such countenance as the Sanhedrists now gave, arose in great numbers, and their daggers did the work of destruction in detail on all supporters of moderate counsels, and led the nation to its final catastrophe. (See our Historical Review, 21:17, § 4.) So awful is the warning against encouragement of lawless violence and secret assassination in any civilized community. Especially in a free government law should be at once just and supreme.

V. 15. Now therefore ye-Which they never scrupled at all, as not doubting but they were doing God service.

Verse 15. And we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.] We shall lie in wait, and despatch him before he can reach the chief captain. The plan was well and deeply laid; and nothing but an especial providence could have saved Paul.

Verses 14, 15. And they came to the chief priests and elders — Who were of the sect of the Sadducees, and Paul’s greatest enemies, telling them what they had done; and desiring them to ask the chief captain to bring Paul down to the council on the morrow, as if they wished to inquire something more perfectly concerning him, and we, (said they,) or ever he come near, are ready to kill him — And we will manage the attack in such a manner, that you shall not appear at all concerned in it; nor have any alarm about the matter, till you hear that he is actually dead. Josephus mentions a case not much unlike this, of some that bound themselves with an oath to kill Herod; in which they gloried as a laudable intention, because he had violated the ancient customs of their nation. It is no wonder, therefore, that these Jews should make no scruple of acquainting the chief priests and elders with their conspiracy against the life of Paul; who, indeed, were so far from blaming them for it, that not long after they renewed the same design themselves. See Acts 25:2, 3.

Ver. 15. And we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him; but they had not asked leave of God. In Daniel 6:24 it is said, the lions brake their bones, or ever they came to the bottom of the den. The French or, “now,” and desormais, “hereafter,” as the Latin hora, equally apply to time. We formerly said, ere ever, and before ever; all these phrases are now antiquated.

15. With the council—They proposed that the request to the chiliarch should be made by regular vote of the Sanhedrin, those who favoured Paul being probably deceived as to the real design. Or ever—Before. They will assassinate him at a distance, by the way, in order to keep the Sanhedrin clear of any suspicion of cooperation in the murder.

Verse 16. Paul’s sister’s son] This is all we know of Paul’s family. And we know not how this young man got to Jerusalem; the family, no doubt, still resided at Tarsus.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

16. Sister’s son—The only appearance of any blood relation of Paul’s in the New Testament history. Whether Paul had, like Barnabas, a married sister resident in Jerusalem, or whether this nephew, who appears thus in view solitary and alone, was a pupil sent to Jerusalem, as Paul once was, there is nothing to decide. The secret of the plot had too many keepers to be well kept. Some of Paul’s favourers in the Sanhedrin may have informed Paul’s relative, and thus he became a link in the chain of Paul’s safety and progress to Rome.

V. 17. And Paul-Though he had an express promise of it from Christ, was not to neglect any proper means of safety.

Verse 17. Bring this young man unto the chief captain] Though St. Paul had the most positive assurance from Divine authority that he should be preserved, yet he knew that the Divine providence acts by reasonable and prudent means; and that, if he neglected to use the means in his power, he could not expect God’s providence to work in his behalf. He who will not help himself, according to the means and power he possesses, has neither reason nor revelation to assure him that he shall receive any assistance from God.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

V. 19. And the tribune taking him by the hand-In a mild, condescending way. Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

19. Took him by the hand… privately—An act of guidance from the present company to a private place.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

Verses 16-22. When Paul’s sister’s son heard, &c. — How privately soever this business was contrived, the providence of God so ordered it, that, for the deliverance of his faithful servant from this inhuman and bloody conspiracy, it came to the ears of Paul’s nephew; who went and entered into the castle — Where, as has been before observed, Paul now lay confined; and told him the whole matter. Then Paul called one of the centurions — Who commanded part of the cohort under the tribune; and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain — Thus we see that Paul, though he had an express promise of it from Christ, did not neglect any proper means of safety. The chief captain took him by the hand — In a mild, condescending way; and went aside privately — Where none could overhear them speaking; and asked what he had to tell him — Lysias seems to have conducted this whole affair with great integrity, humanity, and prudence. So the chief captain — Having received the information which the young man had to give; let him depart, charging him to tell no man what things they were that he had communicated.

22. Tell no man—Paul’s sudden disappearance from Jerusalem was thus left a mystery to the excited Sanhedrin, and a sad perplexity to the oath-bound assassins.

Verse 23. Two hundred soldiers] stratiwtav, Infantry or foot soldiers. Horsemen threescore and ten] There was always a certain number of horse, or cavalry, attached to the foot.

Spearmen] dexiolabouv, Persons who held a spear or javelin in their hand; from en th dexia labein taking or holding a thing in the right hand. But the Codex Alexandrinus reads dexiobolouv, from dexia, the right hand, and ballein, to cast or dart, persons who threw javelins. But both words seem to mean nearly the same thing.

The third hour of the night] About nine o’clock P.M., for the greater secrecy, and to elude the cunning, active malice of the Jews.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

23. Two hundred soldiers—Probably the largest body guard the now rescued apostle ever had. Third hour—At nine o’clock at night this little army, four hundred and seventy strong, horse, foot, and light-armed, prepared for every kind of ground, and every mode of attack, starting from Jerusalem, took the high ridge-road leading toward Sychem, and arrived as far as Gophna by midnight, as their first stopping place. Thence they took a Roman road, of which traces are still visible, slanting northwest-wardly, to Antipatris, where all but the horsemen, who were seventy strong, left to return to Jerusalem.

V. 24. Provide beasts-If a change should be necessary, to set Paul on-So we read of his riding once; but not by choice.

Verse 24. Provide them beasts] One for Paul, and some others for his immediate keepers.

Felix the governor.] This Felix was a freed man of the Emperor Claudius, and brother of Pallas, chief favourite of the emperor. Tacitus calls him Antonius Felix; and gives us to understand that he governed with all the authority of a king, and the baseness and insolence of a quondam slave. E libertis Antonius Felix per omnem sævitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit. Hist. v. 9. He had, according to Suetonius, in his life of Claudius, chap. 28, three queens to his wives; that is, he was married thrice, and each time to the daughter or niece of a king. Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa, was his wife at this time; see Acts 24:24. He was an unrighteous governor; a base, mercenary, and bad man: see Acts 24:2.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

24. Beasts—The Greek word denotes any riding beast, as horses, mules, or camels. More than one would be needed for a single person for change. Each horseman both rode and led a horse. Felix the governor—The procurator, to whom the chiliarch was subordinate, and he to the prefect of Syria. (For account of FELIX, see Hist. Revelation 21:17.)

Verse 25. He wrote a letter after this manner] It appears that this was not only the substance of the letter, but the letter itself: the whole of it is so perfectly formal as to prove this; and in this simple manner are all the letters of the ancients formed. In this also we have an additional proof of St. Luke’s accuracy.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

25. This manner—This type or form. The regular letter form of this document, according to the fashion of that day, shows that Luke offers it as a literal copy. There is no difficulty in supposing that in the many interviews held by Festus with Paul the latter might have seen the original, and furnished a copy to Luke. The latter would value it as an authentic and characteristic document, and worthy to be inserted in his history.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

Ver. 26. Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix. What honour in this Roman; what prudence in keeping peace in the city; what attestations of Paul’s innocence — he has done nothing worthy of bonds or of death. He sent him as a Roman subject, and a free man, to be judged at Cæsar’s bar. God can turn the heart of kings as the rivers of the south, for the salvation of his people.

26. Claudius Lysias—The name Lysias, which is here first given, intimates that he was a Greek; the name Claudius is Latin, assumed, perhaps, after he had bought his Roman citizenship “for a great price.” So that we have here a note from a Greek-Roman chiliarch to a Greek-Roman procurator. Most excellent—An official title. Greeting—The usual epistolary civility.

V. 27. Having learned that he was a Roman-True; but not before he rescued him. Here he uses art.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

27. Should have been—Would have been. An army—Rather, the troops, namely, in possession for the purpose. Rescued him—This Lysias did thrice. Having understood—This was true the second and third time, but not the first. The pretence among many commentators that Lysias is chargeable with an intentional falsehood to obtain fictitious credit is preposterous. He deserved all the credit he could claim, namely, that as soon as he had evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen he maintained his rights with all the power of the government. His conduct from first to last would stand honourably justified before the Roman court. The slight defect in the unimportant detail that in the first rescue he had not been informed of the citizenship was easily committed in so brief and summary a note, and is so natural that every one intuitively feels that both the note and the facts to which it refers are genuinely historical.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

29. Nothing… worthy of… bonds—Felix was now certified beforehand that the prisoner was in bonds only for imaginary crimes. (Note ver. 10.)

Verse 30. I sent straightway to thee] As the proper person before whom this business should ultimately come, and by whom it should be decided. Farewell.] eppwso, Be in good health.

Verses 23-30. And he called two centurions — In whom he could particularly confide; saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers — Thus the chief captain prudently sends Paul away to Cesarea by night, under a strong guard, to the governor Felix. Provide them beasts — If a change should be necessary; to set Paul on — So we read of his riding once, but not by choice. And he wrote a letter, &c. — To Felix on the occasion; which may be considered as a specimen of the Roman method of writing letters, and is certainly a model of brevity, simplicity, and perspicuity. This man was taken of the Jews — Was seized by a multitude of them, who made a sudden insurrection on his account. Then came I with an army — With a party of soldiers, and rescued him from their furious assault; having understood that he was a Roman — True; but not before he rescued him. He here uses art.

V. 31. The soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris-But not the same night they set out. For Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles northwest of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name in honour of his father Antipater: Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, and about thirty from Antipatris.

Verse 31. Antipatris.] This place, according to Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. 23, was anciently called Capharsaba, and is supposed to be the same which, in 1 Macc. vii. 31, is called Capharsalama, or Carphasalama. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great, and denominated Antipatris, in honour of his father Antipater. It was situated between Joppa and Cæsarea, on the road from Jerusalem to this latter city. Josephus says it was fifty stadia from Joppa. The distance between Jerusalem and Cæsarea was about seventy miles.

Verses 31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris — But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

31. Antipatris—”If any man,” says Josephus, “was a lover of his father (Antipater) Herod was, for as a paternal monument he founded a city in the loveliest plain of his kingdom, rich with rivers and trees, and named it Antipatris.”

Verse 32. On the morrow they left the horsemen] Being now so far from Jerusalem, they considered Paul in a state of safety from the Jews, and that the seventy horse would be a sufficient guard; the four hundred foot, therefore, returned to Jerusalem, and the horse went on to Cæsarea with Paul. We need not suppose that all this troop did reach Antipatris on the same night in which they left Jerusalem; therefore, instead of, they brought him by night to Antipatris, we may understand the text thus-Then the soldiers took Paul by night, and brought him to Antipatris. And the thirty-second verse need not to be understood as if the foot reached the castle of Antonia the next day, (though all this was possible,) but that, having reached Antipatris, and refreshed themselves, they set out the same day, on their march to Jerusalem; on the morrow they returned, that is, they began their march back again to the castle. See Clarke on “Acts 24:1”.

Verses 31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris — But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

32. The morrow—After their arrival at Antipatris, being forty miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six miles yet to Cesarea. At this distance from Jerusalem, all danger of attack from the Jewish conspirators having ceased, the infantry return home, leaving Paul in charge of the cavalry escort. Luke’s narrative no more visits Jerusalem.

Verse 33. Who] That is, the seventy horsemen mentioned above.

Verses 31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris — But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

Verses 31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris — But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

34. What province—The first question with a Roman governor, in order to be sure that he trespassed on no other man’s jurisdiction.

V. 35. In Herod's palace-This was a palace and a court built by Herod the Great. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used for a kind of state prison.

Verse 35. I will hear thee] diakousomai sou; I will give thee a fair, full, and attentive hearing when thy accusers are come; in whose presence thou shalt be permitted to defend thyself.

In Herod’s judgment-hall.] en tw praitwriw, In Herod’s prætorium, so called because it was built by Herod the Great. The prætorium was the place where the Roman prætor had his residence; and it is probable that, in or near this place, there was a sort of guard room, where state prisoners were kept. Paul was lodged here till his accusers should arrive. ON the preceeding chapter many useful observations may be made.

1. Paul, while acting contrary to the Gospel of Christ, pleaded conscience as his guide. Conscience is generally allowed to be the rule of human actions; but it cannot be a right rule, unless it be well informed. While it is unenlightened it may be a guide to the perdition of its professor, and the cause of the ruin of others. That conscience can alone be trusted in which the light of God’s Spirit and God’s truth dwells. An ill-informed conscience may burn even the saints for God’s sake!

2. No circumstance in which a man can be placed can excuse him from showing respect and reverence to the authorities which God, in the course of his providence, has instituted for the benefit of civil or religious society. All such authorities come originally from God, and can never lose any of their rights on account of the persons who are invested with them. An evil can never be of use, and a good may be abused; but it loses not its character, essential qualities, or usefulness, because of this abuse.

3. Paul availed himself of the discordant sentiments of his judges, who had agreed to show him no justice, that he might rid himself out of their hands. To take advantage of the sentiments and dispositions of an audience, without deceiving it, and to raise dissension between the enemies of the truth, is an impotent artifice, when truth itself is not violated and when error is exposed thereby to public view.

4. The Pharisees and Sadducees strove together. God frequently raises up defenders of the principles of truth, even among those who, in practice, are its decided enemies. “Though,” says one, “I do not like the truth, yet will I defend it.” A man clothed with sovereign authority, vicious in his heart, and immoral in his life, fostered those principles of truth and righteousness by which error was banished from these lands, and pure and undefiled religion established among us for many generations.

5. The providence of God, and his management of the world, are in many respects great mysteries; but, as far as we are individually concerned, all is plain. Paul had the fullest assurance, from the mouth of Christ himself, that he should see Rome; and, consequently, that he should be extricated from all his present difficulties. Why then did he not quietly sit still, when his nephew informed him that forty men had conspired to murder him? Because he knew that God made use of the prudence with which he has endowed man as an agent in that very providence by which he is supported; and that to neglect the natural means of safety with which God provides us is to tempt and dishonour him, and induce him in judgment to use those means against us, which, in his mercy, he had designed for our comfort and salvation. Prudence is well associated even with an apostolical spirit. Every being that God has formed, he designs should accomplish those functions for which he has endowed it with the requisite powers.

6. Claudius Lysias sent Paul to Felix. “In the generality of human events,” says one, “we do not often distinguish the designs of God from those of men. The design of Lysias, in preserving Paul from the rage of the Jews, was to render his own conduct free from exception: the design of God was, that he might bring Paul safely to Rome, that he might attack idolatry in its strongest fort, and there establish the Christian faith.” God governs the world, and works by proper means; and counterworks evil or sinister devices, so as ultimately to accomplish the purposes of his will, and cause all things to work together for good to them that love Him.

7. Felix acted prudently when he would not even hear St. Paul till he had his accusers face to face. How many false judgments, evil surmises, and uncharitable censures would be avoided, did men always adopt this reasonable plan! Hear either side of a complaint separately, and the evil seems very great: hear both together, and the evil is generally lessened by one half. Audi et alteram partem-hear the other side, says a heathen: remember, if you have an ear for the first complainant, you have one also for the second.

ACTS

Verses 31-35. Then the soldiers brought him by night to Antipatris — But not the same night they set out; for Antipatris was about thirty-eight of our miles north-west of Jerusalem. Herod the Great rebuilt it, and gave it this name, in honour of his father Antipater. Cesarea was near seventy miles from Jerusalem, about thirty from Antipatris. He commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment-hall — Or pretorium. This was a palace and a court, built by Herod the Great, when he rebuilt and beautified Cesarea. Probably some tower belonging to it might be used as a kind of state prison.

35. Herod’s judgment hall—Rather, the pretorium of Herod. This was a palace built by Herod, and afterward occupied by the Roman procurators. Such edifices were furnished, like the old mediaeval palaces and baronial castles, with towers for keeping prisoners of state. Paul was, therefore, not confined in an ordinary prison, but resided in the very palace of Felix. The procurator was probably influenced by both Lysias’ pronouncing him innocent, and by his knowledge that the Christians were now a growing religious body. Under this honourable and gentle durance the apostle remained for two years—in a prison and a palace. He resided in the residence of the slayer of the innocents at the birth of Christ.