Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!” Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people."
What should we do when leaders are not aligned with God? Let's examine how Paul handled such situations. Ananias, the high priest, ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Ananias' arrogant demeanor and unlawful action convinced Paul that he would not receive a fair trial before the Sanhedrin. Despite being a wicked man, Ananias still held a divinely appointed position and was to be shown the respect that role required. However, in his anger, Paul called him a "whited wall," because although he wore the high priest's garment, beneath it he was filled with evil and corruption. I believe Paul recognized the high priest's attire, but he knew that God had not chosen Ananias for that role. The priest had no right to strike someone on the face. Paul's righteous indignation was evident here. It should be noted that Ananias was brutally killed a few years later, stabbed with a dagger.
Paul chose to make a daring move. As a Pharisee and possibly a former Sanhedrin member, he was well aware of the existing tensions between the two factions within the Sanhedrin. He sought the support of the Pharisees by reminding them of his own Pharisee background and highlighting the key theological differences between them and the Sadducees. By doing so, Paul managed to create a division between the factions of the Sanhedrin. To clarify, the Sadducees only recognized the Pentateuch as divinely inspired Scripture. They incorrectly claimed (as noted in Matt. 22:23-33) that the Pentateuch did not support the concept of resurrection, leading them to reject it. Conversely, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection and the afterlife, aligning their beliefs more closely with Christianity than those of the Sadducees. Notably, Scripture mentions the conversion of Pharisees (15:5; John 3:1), but not of Sadducees.
After the captain learns that he cannot extract the truth from "Paul" through force since Paul is a Roman citizen, he decides to uncover the truth by presenting Paul to the Jewish High "council," the Sanhedrin. As Paul engages with the council, he perceives a significant and hostile religious divide. One faction, the "Sadducees," was a small, elite group from the priestly family. The Sadducees were known for their denials; they rejected all supernatural aspects: miracles, angels, and the "resurrection." They only accepted the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, from the Old Testament Scriptures. Politically, they were liberal to gain Rome's favor, enabling them to control the high priest's office, which Rome appointed. In contrast, the "Pharisees" were more aligned with the common people, wielding greater influence over them. Does this resemble our modern political system? The Pharisees embraced all Old Testament Scriptures along with much tradition, which they considered the Oral Law passed down from Moses' time. They believed in the supernatural: miracles and the resurrection. Be aware that Paul’s family had been Pharisees for several generations; thus, Paul aligns himself with them and seeks support for his belief in the Resurrection. By doing so, Paul redirected the Jewish council's hostility from himself to its members. Here, we see again that the Holy Spirit guided Paul on what to say to divert these two groups from him and incite them to dispute over the existence of life after death. Again, Paul has not lied. He is a Pharisee. For more truth, please read your Bible and study the scriptures.
Comments