Комментарии к Библии

Acts 23:1. ἀτενίσας, see on chap. Acts 1:10, “looking stedfastly,” R.V. The word denotes the fixed stedfast gaze which may be fairly called a characteristic of St. Paul. On this occasion the Apostle may well have gazed stedfastly on the Council which condemned Stephen, and although many new faces met his gaze, some of his audience were probably familiar to him. There is no need to suppose that the word implied weakness of sight (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 38).—ἄνδ. ἀδελ.: the omission of πατέρες suggests that he addressed the assembly not as judges but as fellow-countrymen. On ἀδελ. see on Acts 1:15. It is of course possible, as Chrysostom observes, that he did not wish to appear εὐκαταφρόνητος before the chiliarch.—συνειδήσει: the word occurs no less than thirty times in N.T., R.V., so also in John 8:9, but 1 Corinthians 8:7, συνηθείᾳ, R.V., and of these no less than twenty times in St. Paul’s Epistles, twice in Acts, on both occasions by St. Paul, three times in 1 Peter, and five times in Hebrews. It may therefore be almost reckoned as a Pauline word. It does not occur at all in the Gospels (but cf. John 8:9), but it need hardly be said that our Lord distinctly appeals to its sanction, although the word is never uttered by Him. The N.T. writers found the word ready to their use. In Wis 17:10 (11) we have the nearest anticipation of the Christian use of the word, whilst it must not be forgotten that it first appears at least in philosophical importance amongst the Stoics. (In Ecclesiastes 10:20 it is used but in a different sense, and in Sir 42:18, but in the latter case the reading is doubtful, and if the word is retained, it is only used in the same sense as in Ecclesiastes 10:20.) It is used by Chrysippus of Soli, or Tarsus, in Cilicia, Diog. Laert., vii., 8, but not perhaps with any higher meaning than self-consciousness. For the alleged earlier use of the word by Bias and Periander, and the remarkable parallel expression ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις attributed to the latter, see W. Schmidt, Das Gewissen, p. 6 (1889), and for two quotations of its use by Menander, Grimm-Thayer, sub v.; cf. also Davison, The Christian Conscience (Fernley Lectures), 1888, sec. ii. and vi.; Cremer, Wörterbuch, sub v.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans 2:15, and for literature “Conscience,” Hastings’ B.D. For the scriptural idea of the word cf. also Westcott, additional note, on Hebrews 9:9.—πεπολ.: however loosely the word may have been used at a later date, it seems that when St. Paul spoke, and when he wrote to the Philippians, it embraced the public duties incumbent on men as members of a body, Hort, Ecclesia, p. 137, Lightfoot on Php 1:27 (Acts 3:20), cf. Jos., Vita, ii. St. Paul was a covenant member of a divine πολιτεία, the commonwealth of God, the laws of which he claims to have respected and observed. The word is also found in LXX, Esther 8:13 (H. and R.), 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25, and four times in 4 Macc. Lightfoot, u. s., parallels the use of the verb in Phil. by St. Paul from Clem. Rom., Cor[371], xxi. 1, and Polycarp, Phil., v., 5. But Clem. Rom., u. s., vi., 1, has the phrase ποῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαμένοις, referring to the O.T. Saints, and so St. Peter and St. Paul. To this latter expression Deissmann, Bibelstudien, i., p. 211, finds a parallel in the fragment of a letter dating about 164 B.C. (Pap., Par., 63, coll. 8 and 9), τοῖς θεοῖς πρὸς οὓς ὁσίως καὶ … δικαίως (πολι)τευσάμενος.—τῷ Θεῷ: in another moment of danger at the close of his career, 2 Timothy 1:3, the Apostle again appeals to a higher tribunal than that of the Sanhedrim or of Caesar. For the dative of the object cf. Romans 14:18, Galatians 2:19.—ἄχρι ταύτης τῆς ἡμ., emphatic, because the Apostle wished to affirm that he was still in his present work for Christ a true member of the theocracy, cf. Romans 9:1 ff.

[371] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Acts 23:2. Ἀναν.: not the Ananias of Acts 4:7, Luke 3:2, John 18:13, but the son of Nebedæus, appointed to his office by Herod of Chalcis, high priest from c. 47–59. He was sent to Rome on account of the complaints of the Samaritans against the Jews, but the Jewish cause prevailed, and there is no reason to suppose that Ananias lost his office. The probabilities are that he retained it until he was deposed shortly before the departure of Felix. Josephus gives us a terrible picture of his violent and unscrupulous conduct, Ant., xx., 9, 2. But his Roman sympathisers made him an object of hatred to the nationalists, and in A.D. 66, in the days of the last great revolt against the Romans, he was dragged from a sewer in which he had hidden, and was murdered by the weapons of the assassins whom in his own period of power he had not scrupled to employ, Jos., B.J., ii., 17, 9, “Ananias,” B.D.2, and Hastings’ B.D., O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, pp. 130, 146.—τύπτειν: because Paul had forgotten that he was before his judges, and ought not to have spoken before being asked, cf. Luke 6:29, John 18:22, 2 Corinthians 11:20, 1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7. The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew, Farrar, St. Paul, ii., p. 323.

Acts 23:3. Wetstein sees in the words the customary formula of malediction among the Jews. But we need not regard Paul’s words as an imprecation of evil on the high priest, but only an expression of the firm belief that such conduct would meet with punishment, cf. Knabenbauer, in loco. The terrible death of Ananias was a fulfilment of the words. On the paronomasia and other instances of the same figure see Blass, Gram., p. 292.—τοῖχε κεκον., cf. Matthew 23:27, Luke 11:44, the expression may have been proverbial, in LXX, cf. Proverbs 21:9. A contrast has been drawn between St. Paul’s conduct and that of our Lord under provocation, as, e.g., by St. Jerome, Adv. Pelag., iii., 1, but there were occasions when Christ spoke with righteous indignation, and never more severely than when He was condemning the same sin which St. Paul censured—hypocrisy.—καὶ σύ, emphatic, cf. Mark 4:13, Luke 10:29. καὶ at the commencement of a question expressing indignation or astonishment (Page).—κάθῃ κρίνων, later form for κάθησαι, cf. for the phrase Luke 22:30.—παρανομῶν: only here in N.T., but cf. LXX, Ps. 75:4, 118:51; the verb also occurs several times in 4 Macc.

Acts 23:4. τὸν ἀρχ. τοῦ Θεοῦ: of God, emphatic, i.e., sitting on the judgment-seat as God’s representative, cf. Deuteronomy 17:8 ff., and also the name Elohim, by which the priestly and other judges were sometimes known, Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, Psalm 81:1.

Acts 23:5. οὐκ ᾔδειν: the subject of ἐστιν is not expressed as in A. and R.V., in the Greek it is simply “I wist not that it was the high priest (who spoke)”. If it be said that St. Paul could scarcely have been ignorant that Ananias was high priest, we must bear in mind that not even the high priest wore a distinctive dress when not engaged in actual service (Edersheim, Temple and its Services, p. 67, with reference to this same passage), if we are not prepared to accept the view of Chrysostom and Oecumenius amongst others, that the Apostle, owing to his long absence from Jerusalem, did not know the high priest by sight, or to suppose that his weakness of eyesight might have prevented him from seeing clearly (so Lewin, Plumptre). The interpretation that St. Paul spoke ironically, or by way of protest, as if such behaviour as that of Ananias on his nomination to office by Herod of Chalcis was in itself sufficient to prevent his recognition as high priest, is somewhat out of harmony with the Apostle’s quotation of Scripture in his reply, nor are the attempts to translate οὐκ ᾔδειν as = non agnosco or non reputabam successful. See further Zöckler’s summary of the different views, Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edition, in loco.—ἀδελφοί: the word indicates St. Paul’s quick recovery from his moment of just anger to a conciliatory tone.—γέγ. γὰρ: in this appeal to the law, St. Paul showed not only his acquaintance with it, but his reverence for it—another proof of his wisdom and tact.—ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου κ.τ.λ.: LXX, Exodus 22:28, the Apostle apparently only quotes the latter part of the verse; in the Hebrew we have “thou shalt not revile God (margin, the judges), nor curse a ruler of thy people”. Cf. the ruling principle of the Apostle’s conduct Romans 13:1-7 (1 Peter 2:13-17).

Acts 23:6. γνοὺς … τὸ … ἓ τὸ δὲ ἕτερον. On ἕν … ἕτερον: see Simcox Language of the N.T., pp. 71, 72. That Pharisees and Sadducees alike had seats in the Sanhedrim during this period is borne out not only by the N. T., but by Jos., Ant., xx., 9, 1, B.J., ii., 17, 3, Vita, 38, 39. It is possible that the Pharisees might have attracted the attention of the Apostle by their protest against the behaviour of Ananias and their acceptance of the words of apology (so Felten, Zöckler), but it is equally probable that in St. Luke’s apparently condensed account the appeal to the Pharisees was not made on a sudden impulse (see below), but was based upon some manifestation of sympathy with his utterances. In Acts 23:9 it is evidently implied that the story of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus had been narrated, and his acceptance of the Messiahship of the Risen Jesus carried with it his belief in a resurrection.—ἔκραξεν: the word may here as sometimes elsewhere, cf. John 7:37; John 12:44, indicate no isolated cry, but a reference to something previously said, and it is probable that St. Luke may have passed over here as elsewhere some portions of the Apostle’s speech, which were less intimately connected with the development and issue of events. It must however be noted that the verb may mean that the Apostle cried aloud so that all might hear him amidst the rising confusion.—ἐγὼ φαρι. εἰμι κ.τ.λ.: the words have been severely criticised, but in a very real sense they truthfully expressed the Apostle’s convictions. Before Felix St. Paul made practically the same assertion, although he did not use the word φαρ. (cf. also Acts 26:5), Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 111. Moreover it is difficult to see why the Apostle should not describe himself as a Pharisee in face of the statement, Acts 15:5, that many members of the sect were also members of the Christian Church. They, like St. Paul, must have acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah. But that Messiahship was attested by the avowal of the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection was a prominent article of the Pharisees’ creed. In the acceptance of this latter doctrine St. Paul was at one not only with the “Pharisees who believed,” but with the whole sect, and that he used the title in this limited way, viz., with relation to the hope of the resurrection, is plain from the context, which fixes the limitation by the Apostle’s own words. But because the declaration shows the tact of St. Paul, because it is an instance of his acting upon the maxim Divide et impera, has it no higher side in relation to his character and purpose? May we not even say that to the Pharisees he became as a Pharisee in order to save some, to lead them to see the crown and fulfilment of the hope in which he and they were at one, in the Person of Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life? That the Apostle’s action met with Divine approval seems evident, Acts 23:11. See “Paul” (Dr. Llewellyn Davies), B.D.1, iii., 754, 755, and amongst recent writers, Luckock, but on the other hand Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul, p. 187 ff. Bethge attributes to the Apostle an apologetic aim, viz., to show the chiliarch that Christianity should be protected by the State, since it was no new religion, but really proceeded from Judaism; and in support he refers to the words of Lysias, Acts 23:29; but although the Apostle’s appeal may have helped Lysias to form his judgment, it seems somewhat strained to attribute to the Apostle the motive assigned by Bethge.—υἱὸς φαρ.: “a son of Pharisees,” R.V. plural, which is the best reading, i.e., his ancestors, 2 Timothy 1:3, Php 3:5, possibly including his teachers by a familiar Hebraism.—περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀνασ.: generally taken as a hendiadys (so Page), “hope of a resurrection of the dead” (see, however, Winer-Moulton, lxvi. 7). In Acts 26:6 ἐλπίς is used of the hope of a future Messianic salvation—the hope of Israel—but in Acts 24:15 St. Paul distinctly makes mention of the hope of a resurrection of the dead, and his own words again in Acts 24:21 seem to exclude anything beyond that question as under discussion on the present occasion.

Acts 23:7. στάσις: There is no difficulty in supposing that this dissension took place in the Assembly; it may have been no sudden result, because the Apostle had evidently said much more than is mentioned in the preceding verse (see above), and there is good evidence that one of the fundamental differences between the two sects was concerned with the question which St. Paul had raised, Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, i., 315; Jos., Ant., xviii., 1, 4; B.J., ii., 8, 14.—ἐοχίσθη τὸ πλ., Æn., ii., 39, and instances in Wetstein.

Acts 23:8. ἄγγελον … πνεῦμα: are joined together by the speaker as one principal conception, so that the following ἀμφότερα presents no difficulty, see Winer-Moulton, Leviticus , 6, Page, in loco. πνεῦμα would include the spirits of the dead, to one of which Paul would appear to have appealed, Acts 22:7; Acts 22:18 (Weiss). On the denial see Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., p. 13, E.T., cf. also the remarks of Dr. A. B. Davidson, “Angel,” Hastings’ B.D., as to the possible sense of this denial and its possible limitation, with which we may compare Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums, ii., 7, 1046.—ὁμολ., i.e., as part of their religious creed, their confession and open profession of faith: “but the faith of the Sadducees is well described by negations”.