Passion under insult.
We may at once say that, though much excuse may be found for St. Paul, he was quite below the Christian standard in making such an answer to the official. He was certainly far below his Divine Master, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed him. self to him who judgeth righteously." A probable explanation of St. Paul's failure to recognize the high priest is given by Michaelis: "Soon after the holding of the first council at Jerusalem, Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, was deprived of the high priest's office for certain acts of violence, and sent to Rome, whence he was afterwards released, and returned to Jerusalem. Between the death of Jonathan, who succeeded him and who was murdered by Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with this office by Agrippa, an interval elapsed in which this dignity was vacant. This was at the time when Paul was apprehended, and the Sanhedrim, being destitute of a president, Ananias undertook the office. It is probable that Paul was ignorant of this circumstance.'' The incident may suggest to us—
I. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF INDIGNATION. Distinguish between "anger," which is generally used for quick passionate temper, often both unreasoning and unreasonable, and "indignation," which is the proper uprising of our nature against wrong. We seldom do well to be "angry;" we always do well to be "indignant." Anger suggests feeling mastering judgment; indignation suggests judgment giving character to feeling. Every man ought to be sensitive to wrong, whether it be done to others or to himself. The question for him concerns, not the feeling of indignation, but the forms in which such indignation may find expression. St. Paul ought to be indignant at the offering of such an insult, by one who occupied the position of a judge. "St. Paul's prompt and stern utterance perhaps anticipated compliance with this direction, which was quite illegal in itself, and must have been considered to be aggravated as given against a Roman citizen, placed at a Jewish bar by the Roman commandant." For a similar insult offered to our Lord, see John 18:22.
II. THE NOBILITY OF THE MAN WHO CAN APOLOGIZE EVEN FOR HIS RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATIONS. At once, in the spirit of the Christian gentleman, as soon as the official position of the person whom he had answered was pointed out to him, he expressed his regret. Some have, indeed, thought that he meant to say such conduct as that of Ananias made it impossible to regard him as the high priest, but it is more simple to read in his words some sense of his having yielded to his sensitive and intense feelings. Impulsive men are usually quick to acknowledge their faults, and to remove any evil impressions which their conduct or language may have produced. The highest virtue is the self-mastery that keeps us from making such mistakes; but the next virtue is a cheerful and humble readiness to make amends when our mistakes, or our hasty language, have injured another.
III. THE HIGHER RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE MASTERY OF INDIGNATION BY THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, Just as there is a "righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," so there is a righteousness which exceeds the worldly maxims and moral rules which guide ordinary men. It may be right to resent insult, but, from the Christian standpoint, it is much more right to bear it, and be patient under it, and forgive it. And such righteousness is illustrated in the scenes of our Lord's trial, when contumely was heaped upon him. Show that few things offer a severer test of Christian virtue than unprovoked and unreasonable insult. By it even the watchful man may be taken at unawares, and be suddenly moved to passion. Only the constant habit of thinking before we speak, and letting the moments of thinking be moments of prayer, can keep us in the trying hour. St. Paul's reset for his hasty words would be more profound before God than before men. He found a serious and humbling lesson in this mistake. Impress how often we err, and disgrace our Christian profession, by the tone and temper in which we "answer back."—R.T.