The Slap of a White Washed Hypocrite

The day after the Roman authorities rescued Paul from unexpected religious violence at the temple, they took him before the Jewish religious authorities.  The Roman Tribune, Claudias Lysias, wanted  to know more about why the temple crowd had behaved as they did against Paul, so he ordered the highest council of Jewish leaders – called the Sanhedrin – to assemble, then placed Paul before them (Acts 22:30). Paul intently addressed the council and declared to them that he had lived his life before God in all good conscience (Acts 23:1-5). At this, the high priest, Ananias, commanded one of the men standing close to Paul to strike him on the mouth.  Unlike Jesus, who saw a similar act of violence when he was before the council and remained calm, Paul erupted against the high priest, calling him a white washed wall and pointing out that he was in violation of Jewish law for ordering him to be stricken in the face.  What follows is a complicated and curious exploration of biblical ethics, the good character of Paul, and the poor character of the high priest.  

When Paul was slapped, he called the high priest a “whitewashed wall” - which was a direct reference to Ezekiel 13:8-16, and obliquely, a reference to Jesus comparing the religious leaders of his day to “whitewashed tombs” full of uncleanness and dead men’s  bones (Matthew 23:27-28).  A whitewashed wall is a flimsy wall that has been covered with plaster to make it appear stronger, more secure, and more beautiful than it really is by hiding its weaknesses and intrinsic ugliness.  A white washed wall is a lie. In Ezekiel, those who create “whitewashed walls” to promote a false peace or a false prophecy will be punished severely by God by cutting them off as registered members of Israel (Ezekiel 13:9).  Paul was directly impugning the character of the high priest with his accusation by implying moral inferiority! He reinforced that characterization by pointing out that the high priest, as the highest enforcer of God’s law, was also breaking the law by having him physically punished (Deuteronomy 25:1-2).  

Immediately, the members of the Sanhedrin chastised Paul for speaking “evil” against the high priest without recognizing at all the disregard for the law demonstrated by that very high priest. Paul promptly stated that he didn’t know Ananias was the High Priest while also acknowledging his own wrong doing (Exodus 22:28). He self-corrected by ceasing from further remarks – but he also did not apologize. 

How could Paul not know who the high priest was? Afterall, he just advised the crowd the day before that he had worked closely with the elders and the office of the high priest to gain authorizations to arrest believers during the time he was persecuting Christians many years prior, and that those elders could bear witness to his well-known Jewish credentials from that time (Acts 22:3-5).  So Paul either really didn’t recognize the High Priest who would have likely been wearing special priestly garb with which Paul would have certainly been familiar, or Paul was saying that the High Priest’s behavior was so out of sync with God’s laws that he was unrecognizable in that role. Given Paul’s character, the latter is a strong possibility.  If so, Paul was able to humbly self-correct, while also shedding light on sin and corruption in the religious leadership.  What do you think?