Acts 23: 1- 6
"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not [Did not know], brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
This often misunderstood passage -- and very badly handled -- has many good exegetical cues built into it for our edification and admonition.
First, we need to know precisely what Paul said that caused him to repent of what he had said just prior. Then we will look for immediate synonyms and parallels in the local context. Third, we will look briefly at the source being cited here from the Older Testament to make the case for the proper NT interpretation of the sense and proper application of this commandment.
First, we have Paul's saying after being striken -- punched -- at the command of the high priest. He says, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"
The first part of this utterance is that which brought the infraction challenged by those standing near the high priest (likely the temple body guards appointed to his specific protection). For the Temple had its own guard (a small armed force), not appointed by the Romans.
"God shall smite thee [in like manner]," -- the implication of what He has said amounts to invoking a curse upon the chief ecclesiastical authorities within his nation. Notice that Paul understood that God adminsters justice in reciprocal fashion -- Lex talionis. Well had Paul studied the law of the Lord under Gamaliel.
Second, we note synonym for Paul's action used by his detractors, "Do you REVILE God's high priest?" Third, Paul had acted in ignorance, meaning that the high priest was not wearing his formal vestments, and the time of the incident was not near the time of sacrifice. This was not required of the high priest -- or chief priests since there were by the time of the apostles more than one. This came about at the time of John Hyrcanus in the second century B.C., but bears little on our present study meriting more than simple notation.
So we have the example of speech "God will smite you [also]" -- (a curse in the Name of God)
We have the verb "revile" used as a synonym for the curse, and we have the citiation "Do not speak evil against the ruler of your people" from the first testament. This shows clearly that Paul does not forbid simply criticism or any kind of speech whatsoever that may been seen to detract from the honor of the office. That is not the point. The point was VIOLENCE, first of the fist, and then of Paul's retaliatory VERBAL violence, the invoking of a curse with God's title (which is included in the biblical sense of God's Name or reputation).
Repeatedly the Proverbs speak of wicked men saying, "Violence covers their lips," or "their mouths feed on violence." These expressions refer specifically to CURSING others in the Name of God, with the attending hope that God will in fact bring about the curse from their lips, since they themselves may not be strong enough or in the right position to do it with their own fists.
Cursing is verbal violence, invoked in God's Name in the hope that the Lord will honor the curse. This does not mean it is always inappropriate, just that it is covenantally specific, and highly regulated in the Bible. Now the fact of Paul's curse is not questioned even by Paul; only the object of the curse is in question, and whether the invoked curse was proper. Paul, upon learning his error, retracts it, and reproves himself from the law.
But what of the verse he cited? Exodus 22:28 reads,
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."
Here, "gods" [elohim] simply means "judges" as the footnote indicates in the online source and NIV. The point is that the judge must be free from pressure of any kind to impose the sanctions specified in the law of God without fear of retribution or intimidation, lest he pervert the law and justice. Thus, no man is allowed to retaliate against the judge for issuing a judgment with which he disagrees. This does not mean that no appellate courts existed in Israel. They did. But the man was not free himself, apart from due process of biblical law (taken as a whole), to retaliate against the judge issuing an unfavorable judgment, whether by physical or verbal violence (cursing or reviling).
This has nothing to do with criticizing a nation's foreign policy, or voicing one's dissent let us say from Clinton's known adulterous relationship in the whitehouse. That is not the imposition of a curse, but the repeating of public information one may (and should) strongly disapprove of.
The U.S. Constitution itself provides for free speech so that citizens may issue in public speech, or else in writing, their grievances against the abuses of power in government. The Bible does not dispute this right, but it does add qualifications, such as gracious speech and taking care not to incite insurrection by what one says -- using speech to arouse violence or incite crimes.
By noting the original source of Paul's quote, and the parallels in its immediate context, we may conclude with confidence that the saints do have the right and duty to speak out against abuses in places of power, so long as they do so carefully and "seasoned with salt, so that they may know how to answer everyone."
Those ordained as ministers of the gospel have a special duty to resist wickedness, providing something of a system of checks and balances between church and state. But the relationship between these two specified in the Word is another post -- or series of them -- altogether.
Speaking violence against a ruler is simply not permitted. Even Paul reproved himself for ignorantly invoking such against one of the chiefest of judges among his people, even when that judge has plainly abused his power. I have no doubt, however, that Paul was right, since striking an apostle was likewise an extraordinary offense which the high priest committed without repentance (unlike Paul). This is not something you want on your resume.
"Had one of Jesus' -- the Judge of all men -- favorite people struck on the mouth"
This was an extremely bad idea, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, Paul conducted himself within the limits of his office to the best of his knowledge. And obeyed the law of Exodus in the New Testament period -- insert theonomy sermon here -- even when reproved by the wicked properly citing it against him. Paul was a humble man.
This was not one of the ten commandments, but a case law, or ordinance in Israel, whose authority continued into the Newer Testament simply because there was no retraction of it stated or implied in the Newer. Paul was clearly a Theonomist in modern terms. Apart from this hermenteutic - and Theonomy provides both a hermeneutic as well as an objective moral standard -- one cannot make sense of Paul's actions here. For when he spoke of food and dietary laws, he freely urged that one can eat what he likes, for his freedom in the Lord. Not so with Exodus 22:28 and many other laws which continue for the single reason that they were nowhere countermanded later.
For the Law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul. This does not mean, only a small part, but the whole, of the law of the Lord, since no qualification attends the affirmation. This is what the judges are to impose in pronouncing sentence. Any other standard would necessarily be unjust, since God has but one standard of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment