"God will strike you, you white-washed wall!"

[cyberjosh]

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?

 

[stranger]

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, "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.'"
. . .

What are your thoughts on this?

Hi cybershark5886,

A few days ago I read your post, Paul's words: 'God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!' have enthralled me also for a long, long time. There is a particular quality about them. So just now I realise that Paul was speaking prophetically. His reaction to the situation is exactly that which I regard as prophetic. It is of course also Apostolic.

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.

There is something innate happening here - you are turning aside to see, after the fashion of Moses, if you get my drift. The apology shifts Paul back to Apostolic mode from Prophetic mode - I can't prove this but it is my intuition speaking. You are right Paul was right in that prophetic statement he made. It was a warning to the High Priest that God was about to strike him. I don't know what happened to the man. If he later heeded the warning or not.

First of all I do not believe the outburst itself was amiss, even to the High Priest.

I agree.

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.

I don't know if ignorance is the right word - Paul certainly did not know that he was speaking to the 'high priest' - this in itself shows that their was nothing about the man that emanated a priestly character, let alone a high priestly character.

The other thing that surprises me is that Paul did not know who was the current high priest. Perhaps he had just been appointed, or did Paul lose interest in the whole system being so preoccupied with the Gospel and the responsibility of all the churches?

 

[tim-from-pa]

I always took this to mean that Paul knew he was the High Priest, but was being sarcastic---- in other words, one is not to speak evil of the ruler of the people, but since he did, that implied he was saying he was not a true priest.

Paul was the "Einstein" of the theological world. He knew who was the High Priest.

 

[cyberjosh]

I always took this to mean that Paul knew he was the High Priest, but was being sarcastic---- in other words, one is not to speak evil of the ruler of the people, but since he did, that implied he was saying he was not a true priest.

Paul was the "Einstein" of the theological world. He knew who was the High Priest.

The other thing that surprises me is that Paul did not know who was the current high priest. Perhaps he had just been appointed, or did Paul lose interest in the whole system being so preoccupied with the Gospel and the responsibility of all the churches?

Actually I've always heard & personally toyed with the theory that Paul had bad eyesight. THey didn't have spectacles back then to enhance your vision so Paul probably could not identify the High Priest from a distance. And no the High Priest was the same as far as I could tell, now there were two High Priests that year but they ruled in tandem. One had the actual official office Annas and his son held public renown from his previous term (like the Pope) and that was Ciaphas. It was Annas both times who ordered both Jesus and Paul struck and who also ordered Peter and John whipped for preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem and who said to them, "Do you unlearned men presume to teach me?" He was proud, and yes it might have been a prophetic word, but I don't think Paul was being sarcastic.

And like I said the Jewish government still stood under the priesthood at that time. It was not until 70 A.D. that the Priesthood stopped being in a position of power, so Paul really would have broken Jewish law if he had knowingly reviled the High Priest in front of the people. Good or not God ordained him to the office of High Priest and he was to be respected. Just like whether you support the President of the United States or not it would be considered rude and downright wrong to not applaud if he walked in your Church one Sunday. You must honor the burden and the office of authority for the Bible says that no ruler had come to power except those who God has ordained. God is sovereign over affairs and the Bible tells us to obey our respective governments. There are moral exeptions but the Bible didn't have that in mind when it gave the command to obey our governments.

Now another support to the idea that the Priesthood was still in effect up until 70 A.D. is that in Hebrews it speaks of the old system under the law as still passing away (it hadn't completely disappeared yet). And Paul (who I assume wrote Hebrews) said it was soon to pass away (which it did - in 70 A.D.). I think it was interesting though how Paul got a chance to expose the High Priest for who he was yet in ignorance. I wonder why God let that happen though if the authority was not to be undermined? Perhaps you were right about it being a prophetic word for prophets were the one exception to that law of not speaking evil of a ruler because they would relay God's exact words and thoughts even to the degredation and direct confrontation of evil kings by calling them wicked in front of their face. An intersting study....

 

[tim-from-pa]

Actually I've always heard & personally toyed with the theory that Paul had bad eyesight. THey didn't have spectacles back then to enhance your vision so Paul probably could not identify the High Priest from a distance. And no the High Priest was the same as far as I could tell, now there were two High Priests that year but they ruled in tandem. One had the actual official office Annas and his son held public renown from his previous term (like the Pope) and that was Ciaphas. It was Annas both times who ordered both Jesus and Paul struck and who also ordered Peter and John whipped for preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem and who said to them, "Do you unlearned men presume to teach me?" He was proud, and yes it might have been a prophetic word, but I don't think Paul was being sarcastic.

And like I said the Jewish government still stood under the priesthood at that time. It was not until 70 A.D. that the Priesthood stopped being in a position of power, so Paul really would have broken Jewish law if he had knowingly reviled the High Priest in front of the people. Good or not God ordained him to the office of High Priest and he was to be respected. Just like whether you support the President of the United States or not it would be considered rude and downright wrong to not applaud if he walked in your Church one Sunday. You must honor the burden and the office of authority for the Bible says that no ruler had come to power except those who God has ordained. God is sovereign over affairs and the Bible tells us to obey our respective governments. There are moral exeptions but the Bible didn't have that in mind when it gave the command to obey our governments.

Now another support to the idea that the Priesthood was still in effect up until 70 A.D. is that in Hebrews it speaks of the old system under the law as still passing away (it hadn't completely disappeared yet). And Paul (who I assume wrote Hebrews) said it was soon to pass away (which it did - in 70 A.D.). I think it was interesting though how Paul got a chance to expose the High Priest for who he was yet in ignorance. I wonder why God let that happen though if the authority was not to be undermined? Perhaps you were right about it being a prophetic word for prophets were the one exception to that law of not speaking evil of a ruler because they would relay God's exact words and thoughts even to the degredation and direct confrontation of evil kings by calling them wicked in front of their face. An intersting study....

Yes, I could go for that theory as well (the bad eyesight) not being able to see the priest. I never heard that one before, although I have heard the theory that Paul had bad eyesight in reference to that "thorn" and the large letters he wrote.