ACC ~ Acts 23 v1 - 5

OVERVIEW:

This incident, which evokes so much patristic comment, produces much less among the moderns, many of whom, while acknowledging the evidence of Lukan composition, doubt that the whole event is historically probable. Josephus’s account of this high priest is consonant with his actions here, and the fact that Paul did not know him is explained by Paul’s long absence in a primarily Gentile milieu. Paul’s retraction establishes that whatever division eventually occurs is not due to him. For modern commentators, the significant fact of this second, and most important, of Paul’s apologies is that the Pharisees declare Paul innocent. They see in Acts a primary goal of showing that Christianity is a logical development of Pharisaic Judaism, and it is here that this intention is most evident. For these five verses the attention of the Fathers is on three matters: Paul’s ignorance about Ananias, his emotional state when he calls him a whitewashed wall and the intent of these words. Origen shows how Paul is but a type, one manifestation among many, of the one antitype, the true victim. Chrysostom’s focus is more practical. Although he shares the concerns about Paul’s apparent anger and duplicity, he focuses on how these actions and words affect the dispositions of the participants in the events. Physical punishment brought loss of honor and respect for the recipient, and Chrysostom sees Paul’s words as deflecting the high priest’s attempt to shame him. He has an additional concern that his audience not take Paul’s words as an instance and therefore an excuse for arrogance (Acts 23:3b). For Augustine and Bede, however, Paul’s words are a prophecy. Augustine sees them as applying personally to Ananias; for Bede, Ananias is a symbol of the levitical priesthood that Christ has fulfilled. The most complex analysis of this exchange, however, comes from Augustine, who finds in Paul’s declaration of ignorance an esoteric message that here the high priest is not Ananias but Christ, who by being in Paul is in truth being reviled.

23:2 | The High Priest Ordered Them to Strike Paul

THE NATURE OF CHRISTIAN SUFFERING. ORIGEN: We read in the Acts of the Apostles that someone, ordered by Ananias the high priest, struck Paul because he said, “God will strike you, oh whitewashed wall.” And even to this day, the Ebionites, under orders from their illegitimate high priest, strike the apostle of Jesus Christ with their calumnies, and Paul says to such a high priest of the Word, “God will strike you,” and such a high priest is beautiful from without and a whitewashed wall but “within full of dead bones and every filth.” But why do I speak about Paul … ? It is my Lord, Jesus Christ, himself who speaks: “I have given my back to scourgings, and my cheeks to slaps, and my face I did not turn from the shame of being spit upon.” The simple know of these things as happening at one particular time, when Pilate scourged him, when the Jews plotted against him. I, however, see Jesus daily giving his back to scourgings: go into synagogues of the Jews, and see Jesus scourged by their blasphemous speech. See those gathered from among the nations plotting against the Christians, how they seize Christ, and he gives his back to scourgings. Consider the Word of God insulted, reviled, hated by unbelievers. See that he gave his cheeks to be slapped, and after he taught “Should someone slap you on one cheek, offer him the other,” that he himself did the same. HOMILIES ON JEREMIAH 19.12.

23:3 | You Whitewashed Wall

WORDS OF BOLDNESS, NOT ANGER. CHRYSOSTOM: Some say that he [Paul] did not know that he was the high priest. Then why does he defend himself as if there was an accusation and adds, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” For if he was not the ruler, was he then to be abused? Paul himself says, “When we are cursed we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it.” But here he does the opposite. He not only reviles but also curses him. These are words of boldness rather than anger. He did not wish to appear contemptible to the tribune. For the tribune himself had refrained from scourging him, since he was about to be handed over to the Jews. Had he been struck by the servants, it would have rather emboldened the tribune. For this reason he directs his attack not at the servant but at the one who gave the order. The words “you whitewashed wall” and “you are sitting to judge me according to the law” stand for “you are responsible,” as if he had said, “you deserve ten thousand lashes.” See how they were thunderstruck by his boldness. The point was to undermine him completely, but they commended him instead. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 48.

A PROPHECY OF ANANIAS’S DOOM. AUGUSTINE: Of course, those who do not understand him think that [Paul] uttered a reproach when he had been slapped by order of the high priest, for, with seeming insolence, he then said, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall.” But those who understand him take this as a prophecy. The “whitewashed wall” stands for hypocrisy; it is pretense, veiled beneath the priestly dignity, and under this title—as though beneath a white covering—it conceals, as it were, an inner slimy filthiness. SERMON ON THE MOUNT 1.19.58.

A PROPHECY OF THE END OF THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. BEDE: [Paul] did not say this because he was stirred by passion in his mind. Rather, he surely spoke by way of prophesying, for, as a figure, that high priesthood that had been compared to the likeness of a whitewashed wall was to be struck and destroyed, since the true priesthood of Christ had now come with the apostles’ preaching of the gospel. And that is why he said, “God will strike you.” He did not say, “May God strike you.” In fact, he signified by the indicative mood that this thing was going to happen; he did not utter a curse by using the optative mood. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 23.3.

CHRIST SPOKE SIMILARLY AND WAS NOT ABUSIVE. CHRYSOSTOM: This is well said. For to kill one who had done no wrong and moreover does not deserve punishment is a violation of the law. For his words could not be called abusive unless one also called Christ’s words abusive, when he said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees! You are like whitewashed walls.” True, you will say. But since [Paul] spoke before he was struck, it was not out of anger but out of boldness. But I have mentioned the reason for this. Indeed, Christ often insulted the Jews, when he himself had been abused by them, as when he said, “Do not think I will accuse you before the Father.” But [Paul’s words] are not abuse; God forbid. See with what gentleness he addresses these men: “I did not know that he was the high priest of God.” And to show that he was not being ironic, he adds, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” [Paul] even acknowledges that he is still a ruler. Let us learn the gentleness as well as the boldness, so that we may be complete in both. For much exactness is needed to learn what each of them is. Exactness, because these virtues have their attendant vices: near boldness stands audacity, near gentleness, cowardice. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 48.

23:4 | Reviling God’s High Priest?

A REVERSAL AND TRANSFERENCE. AUGUSTINE: But when [Paul] was asked, “Do you revile the high priest?” then he marvelously complied with the requirements of humility, for he replied, “Brothers, I did not know that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” The mildness of this prompt reply shows how calmly he had spoken what he seemed to have uttered in anger, for such a reply could not be given by those who are angered or perturbed. And in the reply, “I did not know that he was the high priest,” he spoke the truth to those who understand him. It is as though he were saying, “I have come to know another high priest, for whose name’s sake I am suffering these injuries—a high priest whom it is not lawful to revile but whom you are reviling, because in me you hate nothing else than his name.” Thus, a man ought not to parade those prerogatives under a false pretense, but he should have his heart prepared for everything, so that he will be able to accord with that expression of the prophet, “My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready.” SERMON ON THE MOUNT 1.19.58.

23:5 | I Did Not Know

I DID NOT KNOW. BEDE: Although [Paul] had actually recognized that this man was not the chief priest in the new covenant, nevertheless, in instructing others and advising them to conduct themselves more decorously toward those in power, he himself also decided to use moderation here. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 23.5.