Light And Smoke: Knowing When To Use Each

 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."  The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"  And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'"  But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23:1-6 NASB)

What sort of person, living what sort of life can stand before the elders of his people and claim he's lived his entire life in good conscience?  Of course, the word he used for "lived" is a Greek word derived from the same Greek word from which we get "politics". It typically refers to the conduct before God in Christian writings, but in normal usage among Gentiles it referred to living as a good citizen.  It's kind of a cool word which we don't have in English.

What the high priest understood he found offensive to some degree, so he had Paul slapped.  I'm not sure if it was Paul's reference to "brethren" including the high priest in that reference, or if something about claiming to live in good conscience was distasteful to him.  Paul seems to be offended by his response, and directs his venom at "him" whom I assume is the high priest.  He seems not to know he's addressing the high priest.  It's weird, really.  Paul knows who directed he be slapped, but not to know that person was the high priest.

Paul's response is to call the high priest a "whitewashed wall" and declare that God will strike him.  He points out that this person sits to judge and yet breaks the law himself.  But when those next to him point out that he's addressing the high priest, he backpedals.  He speaks with humility acknowledging this high priest to be the "ruler of your people" and that he was not to be spoken of in an evil manner.  It's an odd reversal.  But the next reversal is even more strange.

Then Paul declares that he's on trial for his "hope and resurrection of the dead."  This is true, in a sense.  But Paul's true "crime" is faith in Jesus, and His resurrection from the dead.  That is where Paul's hope finds its root, and with what these elders have a problem.  These are the ones who were responsible for the crucifixion and persecuting the followers after Jesus' ascension.  But Paul frames his defense this way because he perceives a division in the group he's addressing.  He perceives this because he is actually one member of one side of the debate.  He was once one of these people.

So, why frame it that way?  What does his hope have to do with his perfectly good conscience?  How does he get from his initial declaration to the verbal "grenade" with which he winds up?  Well, let's look at who said what.

Paul states that he is addressing "brethren", that he has a good conscience, that he has this good conscience before God, and that this good conscience has been until this day.  So, what about before he was blinded by God on the road to Damascus?  Does his good conscience go back beyond that?  The council had to be very aware of his change of heart.  It's not like he was addressing people who thought he was some new-comer, knowing nothing of his background.  It turns out he has family right there.  They knew him, and they would know the veracity or falsity of his claim.  It seems that something about what he said spurred the order for him to be struck.

Paul makes another claim.  Paul claims that his being struck was contrary to the law.  Interesting that no one denies this.  Instead they ask him if he will revile "God's high priest" which, for Paul is a hugely ironic question.  He gets the point though, and acknowledges that he is not to speak evil of the leader of the people.  He brings the issue down to "politics" in one sense.  He's not addressing "God's high priest" since that role is held by Jesus alone.  He is addressing "a high priest" and therefore the leader of the Jewish people, and therefore one of his leaders.  He relinquishes his "high ground" to the council.  But why?

I don't know exactly why, but I suspect that Paul realizes how this event will go for him.  The Roman commander called this meeting, which will immediately cause animosity among the council.  There is no way this will go well for Paul.  His presence is not at the request of the council, but by Roman command.  It had to be resented by the council.  That on top of what these men knew of Paul's rejection of their status among the people of Israel created an environment that could not be conducive to a fair trial.  He was a scary anomaly to their tight socio-religious world view.  He was living proof that they were not immune to this "sectarian view" he preached.  That one of them could follow such a path had to be unnerving.  They had already lost a few to it, but not like Paul.  He was fanatical, or had been.

So Paul lobs his verbal grenade into their midst.  He sees that some are Pharisees and some Sadducees, and sees that there were enough of each to spark a nice size debate.  What resulted was pandemonium, and he had to be "rescued" again by the Roman commander.  I suspect this was Paul's exit strategy rather than something he hoped to use to win his case.  I doubt he truly expected that the Pharisees would all support his position regarding Jesus, even believing in resurrection.  Had he thought that they would support his side in this case he would have said the "resurrection of Jesus" rather than simply "resurrection".  I think he caused the riot intentionally.

If I'm right, then what I see here is God leading one of His servants to be wise or circumspect in his dealings with people outside the Church.  It's not that God doesn't love Jews or Gentiles, but that Paul sees that his calling is not to persuade the council of the Jews that Jesus is their Christ.  He saves his best work for when he is before the Roman governors and a regional king.  Is it possible that I get so focused on God saving everyone, that I spend time where my Master is not working because I think these should be people He calls.  Part of the sovereignty of my Master is over who He calls.  He's not willing that any should perish, but is not working through me into everyone's life either.  He wants the sovereignty in my life to determine what I do and for whom.  Paul tried to begin a defense that may have led to his normal testimony about Jesus, but that quickly derailed.  So, he went with the flow, trusting that his Master was leading him a different way.

It would be good for me to be willing and able to spot those deviations of my Master, and follow them once perceived.  It would be good for me to stop trying to "guide" my Master to those to whom He should be working.  So, since He's the Master, all-knowing, and all that, perhaps I should let Him choose for me...