Word Pictures in the New Testament - David Cox

Word Pictures in the NT [Acts: Chapter 23]
question expresses indignation. {Contrary to the law}
(\paranom•n\). Present active participle of \paranome•\, old verb
to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting
contrary to the law."
23:4 {Of God} (\tou theou\). As God's representative in spite of
his bad character (De 17:8f.). Here was a charge of
irreverence, to say the least. The office called for respect.
23:5 {I wist not} (\ouk •idein\). Second past perfect of \oida\
used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not
know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his
mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way
of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official
dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had
been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight.
And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may
not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of
explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry,
at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that
gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul
at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He
had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest
as the passage from Ex 22:18 (LXX) shows and confesses his
fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Pe
2:23) when smitten on the cheek (Joh 18:22), but he did
protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.
23:6 {But when Paul perceived} (\gnous de ho Paulos\). Perceiving
(second aorist ingressive of \gin•sk•\). Paul quickly saw that
his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack
on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing.
Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the
two parties of the council into collision with each other." So
Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer." Farrar
condemns Paul and takes 24:21 as a confession of error here,
but that is reading into Paul's word about the resurrection more
than he says. Page considers Luke's report meagre and
unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started
and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when
"the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism
and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and
credulity among the Pharisees." But all this is inference. We do
not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies
http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/AC23.RWP.html (3 of 12) [28/08/2004 09:07:39 a.m.]