Apostles.

Able expositions of the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, describing the manners, customs, and localities described by the inspired writers; also interpreting their words, and harmonizing their formal discrepancies, are, happily, not wanting amongst us. But the eduction of its WIDEST truths and highest suggestions is still a felt desideratum. To some attempt at the work we devote these pages. We gratefully avail ourselves of all exegetical helps within our reach; but to occupy our limited space with any lengthened archæological, geographical, or philological remarks, would be to miss our aim; which is not to make bare the mechanical process of the study of Scripture, but to reveal its spiritual results.

SUBJECT: Paul's final Visit to Jerusalem; the Apostle as a Prisoner defending himself before the Sanhedrim.

"On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day," &c., &c.-Acts xxii. 30, xxiii.. 1-11.

E have in our last article noticed Paul's defence before the people; these verses present to us his defence before the Sanhedrim. His appearance as a prisoner before the great council of the nation takes place on the day following his defence before the people.

"On the morrow, because he would have known the certainly whereof he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them."

It is here stated that Paul by the commands of the chief captain" was loosed from his bands." This does not mean that he was loosed of the bands mentioned in verse 25, but the chains by which he was bound by two soldiers mentioned in verse 33 of chapter 21. Thus unchained he stands before the assembled members of the Sanhedrim. The fact that the Sanhedrim was convened by the command of the Roman officer proves, how completely the Jews even in the internal

HOMILETIC GLANCE AT THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

253

concerns of religion were subject to the Roman sway. In this trial, even if indeed it may be so called, we have two very remarkable things-the outrage of justice by a judge and the employment of policy by an apostle.

I. THE OUTRAGE OF JUSTICE BY A JUDGE. Ananias was the leading functionary in this judicial assembly, he was the president, the high priest. It appears from Josephus that there was a high priest by the name of Ananias at this time, and that he was an avaricious and an intolerant man, and who, on account of his conduct with the Samaritans, had been sent by the Roman Governor Quadratus to answer for himself before the Emperor. Whether he was there detained or sent back to Judea, and if sent back to Judea, whether he continued or was re-appointed high priest are disputed points of no great moment. Luke's statement is quite sufficient that mán bea ring the name of Ananias now acted as high priest and pre sided over this court of Jewish justice. This man, in the sacred name and temple of justice, now outraged the cause he professed to represent and administer. "He commanded them that stood by him to smite Paul in the mouth." Though this indignity accorded with the barbarism of both ancient and modern Oriental usages, it was not the less an outrage of all justice. The narrative suggests two remarks concerning it

a

First: It was most unprovoked. Was there anything either in what Paul said or did to justify such gross insolence and injustice? Let us see. Was there anything in that look of his? He seems to have given them a wonderful look. And "Paul earnestly beholding the council." That look was the look of conscious innocence and of searching observation. We may rest assured there was nothing insolent or hard in that look but everything that was reverent and tender. That earnest look of Paul at the council would scarcely fail deeply to affect his own heart. Some twenty-five years had elapsed since he had been present as a member when Stephen the martyr stood a criminal, and to whose death he consented, as the intolerant Jew, to receive commission of the high priests

to go and persecute the disciples of Christ. As he looked round he would be struck with the great changes that had been effected in that body. Many a familiar face was missing, had gone the way of all the earth, others very young had become infirm with years and grey with time. His earnest look about that Sanhedrim must have filled him with melting memories. Certainly there could have been nothing in the look to have provoked the indignity which the high priest commanded to be dealt to him. Was there anything in what he said? What did he say? "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day." It has been remarked that the word fathers, which he employed in addressing the people chapter 21, verse 21, is omitted in this address before the Sanhedrim. He only says here "Men and brethren." This omission might only be in the summary report, or, if it were omitted from his actual address, it might have been a matter of accident, not intention. In any case, there is no ground for entertaining the neologic idea that Paul intended a rudeness. His declaration that he "had lived in all good conscience before God until that day" was far more adapted to conciliate than to offend. An opportunity will occur in the sequel of the exposition of this book to offer remarks on a "good conscience." All that Paul means by the expression here is conscientiousness, a consciousness of rectitude. Conscientiousness, however, as will appear again, does not always imply a good conscience. Saul even as a persecutor was conscientious. Saul making havoc of the Church; Dominic founding the Inquisition; Calvin instituting the death of Servetus; the Puritans imprisoning and banishing Baptists and Quakers, were all conscientious. We can find nothing therefore either in the attitudes, looks, or words of the Apostle in any way to justify the grossly insolent conduct of the high priest. The narrative of this outrage of justice by Ananias, shows

Secondly: It was nobly met. (1) It was met with manly courage. Did the spirit of Paul cower and cringe before this insult? No. It rose into noble defiance :-

"Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"

Whited wall is a proverbial expression for hypocrite. The Heavenly Teacher himself denounced the Pharisees as whited sepulchres. The words of the Apostle may be either an imprecation or prediction. If the former, it was an outburst, not, we think, unjustified, of that warm temper of his which formed the foundation of his noble nature. Indignation in itself is not wrong. On the contrary, it is a virtuous passion when roused as in this case by the vision of a moral enormity. If the latter, a prediction, the Apostle spoke under the inspiration of truth. Paul knew that the man who so outraged justice and law as Ananias did now would inevitably meet with the retribution of Heaven. History shows that soon after he did become the victim of eternal justice. Josephus informs us that he, with his brother Hezekiah, were slain during the terrible excitement that occurred in Jerusalem when the insurgent ruffians under their leader, Manahem had got possession of the holy city. At first he attempted to conceal himself in an aqueduct, but afterwards was drawn forth and killed. But whether the Apostle's language was that of imprecation or prediction, his courage in either case was strikingly manifest. It was not in the power of a mortal t› crush into servility that Christ-inspired soul of his. This insult was also met (2) by commendable candour:-

"Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

It appears that there were some in the Sanhedrim on this occasion who regarded Paul's words as profane and rebellious. "Revilest thou God's high priest?" The reply of the Apostle is variously interpreted. "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest." Some suppose that the Apostle speaks ironically, that he meant to say, I never could suppose that such an unjust man was a high priest, that a man who so outraged justice should sit in her seat and administer her

affairs. Others suppose that he really meant what he said, that he really did not know that the man who commanded him to be smitten on the mouth was a high priest. Those who take the latter view, the view I incline to, must regard the Apostle as in some measure apologising for the hastiness of his utterance, as virtually saying, I acknowledge my error and my haste, I have spoken unadvisably with my lips, the insult and cruelty I have received have betrayed me into an undue warmth of temper; I know that the office of high priest is divine, however corrupt the man is who fills it, and respect for the office should have made me more cautious, for it is written, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." (Exodus xxii. 28.) The best men on earth are liable to be overtaken by temper, and the candour which like Paul's hastens to acknowledge the defect is a rare attribute of excellence.

The other remarkable thing which you have in this trial is

The

II. THE EMPLOYMENT OF POLICY BY AN APOSTLE. Apostle having seen enough to convince him that there was no prospect whatever of obtaining a fair trial before the Sanhedrim had recourse to a clever measure of policy. The narrative leads us to consider the nature and effects of this policy.

First: The nature of the policy which that Apostle em ployed. What was the expedient he employed? Seeing that there was no chance of having justice done him by that judicial assembly, he endeavours at once to divert their attention from himself by raising a question that would set them into a furious disputation amongst themselves. The members of the Sanhedrim were composed of Sadducees and Pharisees. One of the grand and chief questions that divided these parties was the doctrine of the resurrection and the existence of a spirit world. This question Paul raises in their midst :

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and