cyberjosh
Member
I'm sure most of you remember the words Paul spoke to the High Priest when he was unlawfully struck before the Sanhedrin:
"1Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."
2The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
3Then 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?"
4But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
5And 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.'"
I'm going to be honest with you, every time I read that I actually feel like cheering and agreeig with Paul but then it all ends, half-cheer like a record player coming to a distorted halt, because we then see that Paul had to apologize for speaking evil of a ruler of the people (which he did in ignorance of course). However, I want to evaluate this because I believe that Paul was right in alot of what he said.
First of all I do not believe the outburst itself was amiss, even to the High Priest. Jesus was also unlawfully struck by the same High Priest and Jesus raised a similar objection, asking for what wrong he was struck for. Where I think Paul went amiss is when he actually called the High Priest a white-washed wall. Now in my opinion Paul was 100% correct about the High Priest being a white washed wall, and some people may think it is stupid that Paul had to apologize for being right, but as best as I can tell the reason the rule for not speaking evil of a ruler of the people is so that they will not be undermined in their leadership position, because Jesus did authorize the continued obedience of the people to the High Priest & the Sanhedrin saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses: therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them" (Matthew 23:2-3). Thus Paul could not rightfully undermine the High Priest whether he was right or not. And even Jesus called the Pharisees in general white-washed walls, but we never hear of him saying that to the High Priest himself. This is how I view this exchanged between Paul and the High Priest. Paul was right, but in igorance he said it, because he did not know he was speaking to the High Priest, yet nonetheless the Priest had ordered him stuck contrary to the law, just as he did for Jesus.
What are your thoughts on this?
"1Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."
2The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
3Then 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?"
4But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
5And 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.'"
I'm going to be honest with you, every time I read that I actually feel like cheering and agreeig with Paul but then it all ends, half-cheer like a record player coming to a distorted halt, because we then see that Paul had to apologize for speaking evil of a ruler of the people (which he did in ignorance of course). However, I want to evaluate this because I believe that Paul was right in alot of what he said.
First of all I do not believe the outburst itself was amiss, even to the High Priest. Jesus was also unlawfully struck by the same High Priest and Jesus raised a similar objection, asking for what wrong he was struck for. Where I think Paul went amiss is when he actually called the High Priest a white-washed wall. Now in my opinion Paul was 100% correct about the High Priest being a white washed wall, and some people may think it is stupid that Paul had to apologize for being right, but as best as I can tell the reason the rule for not speaking evil of a ruler of the people is so that they will not be undermined in their leadership position, because Jesus did authorize the continued obedience of the people to the High Priest & the Sanhedrin saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses: therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them" (Matthew 23:2-3). Thus Paul could not rightfully undermine the High Priest whether he was right or not. And even Jesus called the Pharisees in general white-washed walls, but we never hear of him saying that to the High Priest himself. This is how I view this exchanged between Paul and the High Priest. Paul was right, but in igorance he said it, because he did not know he was speaking to the High Priest, yet nonetheless the Priest had ordered him stuck contrary to the law, just as he did for Jesus.
What are your thoughts on this?