Page 107 - Acts Student Textbook

Nevertheless, according to God’s word he was in error and later realized he had been the chief of
sinners (1 Tim. 1:12-16).

It is possible to act in all good conscience and yet be wrong because our beliefs are wrong. People
often say, “Just let your conscience be your guide.” Now, we should not violate our conscience by
doing what we know to be wrong. But one can follow his conscience and still be wrong because his
beliefs are wrong to begin with. Conscience simply tells us whether or not we are doing what we
believe to be right. If our beliefs are wrong, our conscience may feel fine, yet we are still in error.
First, we must train our consciences according to God’s word. Then if we follow our consciences we
will truly be right. Using conscience is reliable only when the Bible is the standard by which we
measure right or wrong.

What was Paul’s response when the high priest ordered that he be struck? (23:2,3)

In response to Paul’s claim that he was innocent, Ananias the high priest commanded the people
beside Paul to slap his mouth. This was surely an unjust act, inasmuch as Paul had not been proved to
have done wrong. Why slap someone just because he affirms he is innocent? Maybe he is innocent!
To punish him simply for claiming innocence is to demonstrate that the court trying Paul was
seriously biased. They expected maybe that he would claim to be guilty?

Paul responded by rebuking this act. He pointed out that the men were supposed to be judging him
according to the law, yet this man had commanded an act that violated the law. Paul said "God is
58
going to strike you" (23:3). This is recorded in great detail in Josephus. you whitewashed wall" It is
uncertain exactly what Paul was saying. (1). the Jews used this metaphor for hypocrisy (cf. Matt.
23:27). (2). it could be an allusion to Ezek. 13:10-15

Paul apologized for his statement (23:4, 5)

A bystander pointed out that Paul was speaking improperly to the high priest. Paul then said he did
not know he was addressing the high priest. He quoted a Scripture saying one should not speak evil
of a ruler of the people (Ex. 22:28). This is a confusing event. Several problems present themselves:

Why did Paul not know the man was the high priest? The theories for Paul's not knowing are his,
but there are other theories suggested by well-meaning people: First, Paul’s poor eyesight; Second,
Paul’s not being familiar with him because Paul had been gone from Jerusalem for several years;
Third, Paul could not recognizing the High Priest because he was not wearing his official robes; Fifth:
Paul did not know who spoke; Sixth, Paul could not recognize him because of the inappropriateness
of the high priest’s actions (i.e., sarcasm). Seventh, perhaps, since the Romans had arranged the
meeting, the high priest was not sitting in a place that indicated his position, so Paul did not
recognize who he was. Eighth, may be two men were recognized as high priest at the time (such as
Annas and Caiaphas had been in Jesus’ time). Maybe Paul realized another man was high priest but
not this one too.

Wherein did Paul do wrong here? Some suggest that: First, Paul errored in the manner in which the
rebuke was spoken, that he did not recognize the high priest’s position and his. Second, the error
must have been that Paul responded bitterly, charging hypocrisy, and affirming that God would strike
him.

However, many examples show prophets powerfully rebuking rulers of the people. John the Baptist
had told Herod he had no right to have his brother’s wife (Matt. 14:4). Nathan rebuked David for his

58 Josephus, Jewish Wars, (2.17.9).
106