For Christians, there is a time for rebuke and a time for deferring. A time for condemning, a time for restraint. There is never a time to malign. There are many times that “righteous anger” or the name of Christ cannot vindicate anger-infused speech. There should be few times of silence when Christ is defamed. The issue is knowing what time it is and what’s right for it. The simple key to learning how to speak to others is to be conscious of the fact that our speech either adorns or stains Christ and his Gospel. Our reactions and interactions with others should concern Christ, not ourselves. In Acts, Luke records several of Paul’s speeches. I will focus on just two examples from Paul’s defense speeches found in chapters Acts 19–24.[1] The first example is a high priest, a Sadducee, and member of the Sanhedrin. The second, a Roman governor. Both reject Paul and his gospel, but Paul responds to them quite differently. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from Paul about both how and when we speak.
1. Much of the following is adapted from, Brian Vickers, Acts, in ESV Expository Commentary: John-Acts, vol. 9 (Wheaton: Crossway), 2019.
A Whitewashed Wall
Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul calls the high-priest Ananias a “white-washed wall” (Acts 23:3).[2] A reader might wonder how that fits with what Paul says about his manner of speaking in 1 Corinthians. Paul asserts that “when reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat” (1 Cor. 4:12–14). To understand what Paul says in Acts 23:2, a little background is in order. When Paul came to Jerusalem, diaspora Jews (from Asia), stirred up a crowd who would have beaten Paul to death if not for Roman soldiers intervening (Acts 21:27–32). They accused Paul of teaching against the people of Israel, the Mosaic law, and the Temple. Not to mention he also brought a Gentile into the temple (he did not, by the way). Paul asks to speak to the crowd, addressing them as “Brothers and fathers” (Acts 22:1), he proceeds to share his testimony, including his former persecution of believers. The crowd listened until Paul said that God sent him to the Gentiles. Their reaction to that bit of news was simple: “Rid the earth of him” (Acts 22:22). That is the backdrop to Paul’s confrontation with Ananias and the Sanhedrin the next day.
2. All quotes are from the NIV unless noted otherwise.
Not only is Paul persecuted for the gospel of Jesus, but the crowd also scorned and attacked the gospel. No doubt Ananias knew about all this when Paul tells the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). It is only after Ananias orders people standing near Paul to hit him on the mouth, that Paul calls him “a whitewashed wall.” Someone standing by rebukes Paul for speaking against the high priest. Paul responds by saying he did not realize Ananias was high priest, and he quotes Exodus 22:28, “Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people”— not exactly an apology, but a recognition. In my view, Paul is following the example of Jesus, in line with the Old Testament prophets, and condemning the corruption and unbelief of the Jewish authorities. He is not defending himself. More than that, he is condemning the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, the rejection of God and his promises. He does not call Ananias a name because he is personally offended—he’s judging the unbelief of those who ought to have seen and received the Messiah, just as the Messiah himself did in Matthew 23 (see also Stephen’s defense in Acts 7). Yes, Paul uses strong, unfiltered language, but “whitewashed wall” is not purposeless name-calling or slander, it is a purposeful word of condemnation for rejection of the message that itself is an aroma of death to those who are perishing, those who refuse the Gospel (2 Cor. 3:15–16).
“Most Excellent Festus”
From the time Paul leaves Jerusalem under Roman guard until he arrives at Rome, he appears before three government officials. There is Felix the governor at Caesarea (Acts 24), whom Paul addresses respectfully, acknowledging that Felix served as “judge over this nation.” After that, Paul speaks before Festus, who took Felix’s place as governor (Acts 24:27), and Agrippa.[3] Readers are likely familiar with the famous exchange between Agrippa and Paul. Agrippa asks “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” to which Paul responds, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains” (Acts 26:28–29). Paul’s speech before Agrippa is his longest recorded testimony in Acts. Paul is consistently respectful and deferential, and he holds nothing back about the gospel, his experience, including his former persecution of Christians, and the centrality of the resurrection. It is itself a model of Christian discourse. But I want to focus briefly on an exchange between Paul and Festus.
3. “Herrod Agrippa II, son of Agrippa 1 (Acts 12:1ff), did not rule over Judea but he did have authority over the temple including authority to appoint priests. The Romans had taken back Galilee, Perea, Samaria, Judea, and Idumea, all of which were under his father’s rule. He was, nevertheless, still quite powerful and influential and, more importantly, “familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews (26:2)” Vickers, Acts.
Festus clearly has no regard for Paul or his gospel. His reaction is like the Greeks who called Paul “a babbler” for the same reason (Acts 17:18). Paul ends his speech saying, “God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22–23). Festus hears “resurrection” and shouts: “You are out of your mind, Paul . . . Your great learning is driving you insane” (Acts 26:24). Notice what Paul does not do—he does not defend himself or take exception to Festus’ insult. Festus is not a whitewashed wall. (Bear in mind, not being a white-washed wall does not mean Festus is good). Paul responds, honoring Festus, and he takes the opportunity to press Agrippa with the truth of the gospel: “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do” (Acts 26:25–27). Paul does not take the insult and rejection personally—he didn’t take it personally with Ananias either—but rather, he answers back, defending the rationality and truth of his message. In effect, Paul says, “No, excellent Festus, it’s insane to reject the truth.” Paul does not back down, he disagrees with Festus and goes on plead with Agrippa, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do” (Acts 26:17).
In both cases Paul defends the truth of the gospel. With Ananias, Paul exposes the hypocrisy of the leaders, a theme prevalent throughout Luke-Acts, not to mention through the Old Testament starting with the first reception of Moses: “Who made you ruler and judge over us?” (Exod 2:14; Acts 7:27). With Festus, Paul counters his rejection of the gospel. In neither case does he react to the personal attack or insult. In both cases, the gospel is Paul’s only priority and in both cases he responds appropriately as one unconcerned with himself or his reputation or personal safety. I believe that if we had less regard for ourselves and more regard for Christ and his gospel, then we would know when it is right to say, “whitewashed wall” and when it is right to say, “Most Excellent.”
