Acts 23:1–11

"And Paul looking upon the council, said," etc. When Paul had said right in front of the council: "Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good conscience before God until this present day," the high priest Ananias commanded the men who stood by him to strike Paul's mouth, on the grounds that it had been blaspheming. But Paul replied to him with a free voice: "God shall strike thee, thou whited wall, that, sitting in a judge's place, commandest against the law that I be struck." When they accused him of wishing to revile the high priest, he replied that he had not known he had such a high dignity. And Paul, knowing that both Pharisees and Sadducees, who hold divergent beliefs from one another, had assembled there, proclaimed with a loud voice that he was a Pharisee and that he was standing a grievous trial because of the hope and resurrection of the dead, which they themselves believed in. At these words, a dispute soon arose among them, and the assembly was scattered.

"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." It shows his boldness, and how it awed them. What he means is this: I am not conscious to myself of having wronged you at all, or of having done anything worthy of these bonds.

Paul speaks now not to the people and not to the crowd, "looking intently at the Sanhedrin," that "he had lived with a perfectly good conscience," that is, he is not conscious of being guilty before them in any of his actions, nor deserving of these chains.

"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?"

What hardihood, what shamelessness! Therefore Paul set him down with a rebuke "God shall smite thee thou whited wall." Accordingly Ananias himself is put to a stand, and dares not say a word: only those about him could not bear Paul's boldness. They saw a man ready to die. For the wrong was not to be put up with, for to hold his peace under such treatment would have been to embolden the tribune to sacrifice him to his enemies, as a person who might be insulted with impunity. He both shows that he suffers willingly what he suffers, and thus excuses himself before them, not that he wished to excuse himself to them-since as for those, he even strongly condemns them-but for the sake of the people.

"Violating the law, commandest thou me to be beaten?" Well may he say so: for to kill a man who had done them no injury, and that an innocent person, was a violating of the law. For neither was it abuse that was spoken by him, unless one would call Christ's words abusive, when He says, "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto whited walls." True, you will say: but if he had said it before he had been beaten, it would have betokened not anger, but boldness.

They are the words of boldness, rather than of anger; he did not choose to appear in a contemptible light to the tribune. For suppose the tribune himself had spared to scourge him, only as he was about to be delivered up to the Jews, his being beaten by their servants would have more emboldened him: this is why Paul does not attack the servant, but the person who gave the order. But that saying, "Thou whited wall, and dost thou sit to judge me after the law?" is instead of, Being thyself a culprit: as if he had said, And thyself worthy of stripes without number. See accordingly how greatly they were struck with his boldness; for whereas the point was to have overthrown the whole matter, they rather commend him.

We read in the Acts of the Apostles that someone, ordered by Ananias the high priest, struck Paul because he said, "God will strike you, oh whitewashed wall." And even to this day, the Ebionites, under orders from their illegitimate high priest, strike the apostle of Jesus Christ with their calumnies, and Paul says to such a high priest of the Word, "God will strike you," and such a high priest is beautiful from without and a whitewashed wall but "within full of dead bones and every filth." But why do I speak about Paul …? It is my Lord, Jesus Christ, himself who speaks: "I have given my back to scourgings, and my cheeks to slaps, and my face I did not turn from the shame of being spit upon." The simple know of these things as happening at one particular time, when Pilate scourged him, when the Jews plotted against him. I, however, see Jesus daily giving his back to scourgings: go into synagogues of the Jews, and see Jesus scourged by their blasphemous speech. See those gathered from among the nations plotting against the Christians, how they seize Christ, and he gives his back to scourgings. Consider the Word of God insulted, reviled, hated by unbelievers. See that he gave his cheeks to be slapped, and after he taught "Should someone slap you on one cheek, offer him the other," that he himself did the same.

"Know ye not that we are to judge angels? " Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): "Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!" and, "If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behaves him to know I" Is he not even then "smiting some one's face," in saying, "For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received? " Is he not withal "smiting them upon the mouth," (in saying): "But some, in (their) conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice.

Of course, those who do not understand him think that [Paul] uttered a reproach when he had been slapped by order of the high priest, for, with seeming insolence, he then said, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall." But those who understand him take this as a prophecy. The "whitewashed wall" stands for hypocrisy; it is pretense, veiled beneath the priestly dignity, and under this title—as though beneath a white covering—it conceals, as it were, an inner slimy filthiness.

God will strike you, whitewashed wall. He did not say this disturbed in mind, but indeed he spoke prophetically, because that figurative priesthood, which was composed in the likeness of a whitewashed wall, was to be struck and destroyed when the true priesthood of Christ had come, with the apostles preaching the Gospel. And that is why he said: God will strike you. He did not say, may He strike you: indeed indicating this in the indicative mode that it would happen, not cursing in the optative. For that he spoke these things with a calm mind, he shows by the following response, saying:

"God will strike you, you who have been puffed up." It is worth asking how the same speaker elsewhere says, "When condemned we bless, when persecuted we endure," (1 Cor. 4:12) whereas here, on the contrary, he not only condemns but also curses. And we say that these expressions are more a matter of boldness than of anger. For he did not wish to appear scornful toward the centurion. If he himself refrained from sparing the rod, as though about to be handed over to the Jews to be beaten by their servants, he would have made that man more brazen. But this is not, as some say, addressed to the child, but to the one who gave the command, for whom he immediately pleads. For knowing that one must also restrain righteous anger and hide rightful indignation, he speaks as if repenting: "I did not know that he is the high priest," although he knew.

"You sit to judge according to the law, and, contrary to the law, you order me to be struck." That is, transgressing the law, becoming guilty of lawlessness; as if to say: "Being worthy of very many punishments."

"You whitewashed wall!" He calls him this because although Ananias assumed the bright appearance of a man who supposedly defends the law and judges according to the law, his mind was full of lawlessness. Therefore Paul also exposes in him the hypocritical appearance of outward devotion to the law.

But when [Paul] was asked, "Do you revile the high priest?" then he marvelously complied with the requirements of humility, for he replied, "Brothers, I did not know that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " The mildness of this prompt reply shows how calmly he had spoken what he seemed to have uttered in anger, for such a reply could not be given by those who are angered or perturbed. And in the reply, "I did not know that he was the high priest," he spoke the truth to those who understand him. It is as though he were saying, "I have come to know another high priest, for whose name's sake I am suffering these injuries—a high priest whom it is not lawful to revile but whom you are reviling, because in me you hate nothing else than his name." Thus, a man ought not to parade those prerogatives under a false pretense, but he should have his heart prepared for everything, so that he will be able to accord with that expression of the prophet, "My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready."

For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy, people."

Moreover also Solomon, established in the Holy Spirit, testifies and teaches what is the priestly authority and power, saying, "Fear the Lord with all thy soul, and reverence His priests; " and again, "Honour God with all thy soul, and honour His priests." Mindful of which precepts, the blessed Apostle Paul, according to what we read in the Acts of the Apostles, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou thus God's high priest? "answered and said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our King, and Judge, and God, even to the very day, of His passion observed the honour to priests and high priests, although they observed neither the fear of God nor the acknowledgment of Christ. For when He had cleansed the leper, He said to him, "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift." With that humility which taught us also to he humble, He still called him a priest whom He knew to be sacrilegious; also under the very sting of His passion, when He had received a blow, and it was said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? "He said nothing reproachfully against the person of the high priest, but rather maintained His own innocence saying, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " All which things were therefore done by Him humbly and patiently, that we might have an example of humility and patience; for He taught that true priests were lawfully and fully to be honoured, in showing Himself such as He was in respect of false priests.

But with respect to what you have said, that priests should be lowly, because both the Lord and His apostles were lowly; both all the brethren and Gentiles also well know and love my humility; and you also knew and loved it while you were still in the Church, and were in communion with me. But which of us is far from humility: I, who daily serve the brethren, and kindly receive with good-will and gladness every one that comes to the Church; or you, who appoint yourself bishop of a bishop, and judge of a judge, given for the time by God? Although the Lord God says in Deuteronomy, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priests or unto the judge who shall be in those days, even that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and do no more presumptuously." And again He speaks to Samuel, and says, "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And moreover the Lord, in the Gospel, when it was said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? "guarding the priestly dignity, and teaching that it ought to be maintained, would say nothing against the high priest, but only clearing His own innocence, answered, saying, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " The blessed apostle also, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's high priest? "spoke nothing reproachfully against the priest, when he might have lifted up himself boldly against those who had crucified the Lord, and who had already sacrificed God and Christ, and the temple and the priesthood; but even although in false and degraded priests, considering still the mere empty shadow of the priestly name, he said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

"And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

Because "I knew not that he was high priest." Some say, Why then does he defend himself as if it was matter of accusation, and adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people?" For if he were not the ruler, was it right for no better reason than that to abuse him or any other? He says himself, "Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it"; but here he does the contrary, and not only reviles, but curses.

"For it is written," etc. He wishes to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor because Ananias did not deserve to be called this, but from obedience to the law in this point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded that he did not know that it was the high priest, since he had returned now after a long interval, and was not in the habit of constant intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in the midst among many others: for the high priest was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there being many of them and diverse. So, it seems to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his plea against them: by way of showing that he does obey the law; therefore he thus exculpates himself.

"I wist not," he says, "that he was God's high priest": and, to show that he was not dissembling he adds, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." He even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us also learn the gentleness also, that in both the one and the other we may be perfect. For one must look narrowly into them, to learn what the one is and what the other: narrowly, because these virtues have their corresponding vices hard by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness: and need being to scan them, lest any person possessing the vice should seem to have the virtue.

I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest. For although he truly knew that this was not the high priest in the new testament, nonetheless teaching others, and thus urging those who are in power to behave more modestly, he also wanted to temper himself here.

For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy, people."

"God will strike you, you who have been puffed up." It is worth asking how the same speaker elsewhere says, "When condemned we bless, when persecuted we endure," (1 Cor. 4:12) whereas here, on the contrary, he not only condemns but also curses. And we say that these expressions are more a matter of boldness than of anger. For he did not wish to appear scornful toward the centurion. If he himself refrained from sparing the rod, as though about to be handed over to the Jews to be beaten by their servants, he would have made that man more brazen. But this is not, as some say, addressed to the child, but to the one who gave the command, for whom he immediately pleads. For knowing that one must also restrain righteous anger and hide rightful indignation, he speaks as if repenting: "I did not know that he is the high priest," although he knew.

For he said, "And do you sit to judge me according to the law." But he pretends an ignorance that does not harm, but is economical. For there is also a stronger use of frankness by way of handling. For often frankness at an inopportune time harmed the truth, but a timely handling accomplished the matter at hand. [SEVERUS]

"I did not know, brothers," and what follows. Some say that he did not know that he was the high priest, having returned after a long time, not being related to the Jews, and seeing him among many others; for the high priest was no longer obvious, many being present and different. Therefore, as not knowing, he reasonably defends himself as if there were an accusation, and bring forward, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people."

"You revile the high priest of God? Paul said: I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest." How then did he say: "You sit to judge according to the law?" Yes, Paul pretends not to know, but this was not harmful but beneficial for the listeners. But I (Blessed Theophylact) am very convinced that Paul truly did not know that Ananias was the high priest, since Paul had arrived recently in Jerusalem, had not associated with the Jews, and saw Ananias among many other persons. Indeed, among many and various persons the high priest was also inconspicuous.

Brothers, I am a Pharisee, etc. Just as the unity of the good is always useful, so the unity of the wicked is always harmful to the good. Therefore, now the Apostle strives to dissociate his persecutors so that they, united, would surround him, but divided, would release him. Thus the Red Sea, which as solid had confined the children of Israel, when divided, freed them from Egypt. But that he attests to being a son of Pharisees, or, according to the Greek, a son of a Pharisee, is what above he glories in, having learned the law and the prophets at the feet of Gamaliel, who is read to be a Pharisee.

Again he discourses simply as man, and he does not on all occasions alike enjoy the benefit of supernatural aid. "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:" both in this, and in what comes after it, he wished to divide the multitude, which had an evil unanimity against him. And he does not speak a falsehood here either: for he was a Pharisee by descent from his ancestors. "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." For since they would not say for what reason they arraigned him, he is compelled therefore to declare it himself.

"I," he says, "am a Pharisee:" then, that he may not seem to pay court, he adds, "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead it is, that I am called in question." From this charge and calumny he commends himself.

Again he speaks in a human manner, and does not everywhere enjoy the benefit of grace. And at this time and after these things he wished to divide the multitude which was of one mind against him. And in this place he does not lie: since by his ancestors he was a Pharisee. [CHRYSOSTOM]

You find Paul confessing his faith before the chief priests, under the shelter of the chief captain, among the Sadducees and the Pharisees: "Men and brethren," he says, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am now called in question by you," -referring, of course, to the nation's hope; in order to avoid, in his present condition, as an apparent transgressor of the law, being thought to approach to the Sadducees in opinion on the most important article of the faith-even the resurrection.

Again he speaks in a human manner: "I am a Pharisee," but everywhere he is rich in grace. He does not deceive here either, because by his ancestors he is "a son of a Pharisee." And since the Jews did not want to say what they were accusing him of, he considers himself compelled to state it himself: "for the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am being judged," and he justifies himself both by their accusation and slander.

"But the Pharisees," it says, "confess both." And yet there are three things: how then does he say both? "Spirit and Angel" is put as one. When he is on their side, then they plead for him.

"For the Sadducees indeed," etc. The Sadducees have no knowledge of anything incorporeal, perhaps not even God; so gross are they: whence neither do they choose to believe that there is a Resurrection.

The Sadducees, being arrogant, perhaps do not even know God. Therefore, they do not wish to believe in a resurrection. But the Pharisees confess both. And indeed there are three. How then does he say, "both"? Either because he calls spirit and angel one, or because the word does not speak only of two, which is what "both" chiefly signifies, but also of three. Therefore one ought not from the outside to judge the writings of plain and unschooled fishermen with the exacting judgments of a scholar. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Of the Sadducees I am silent, who, springing from the root of this error, had the hardihood to adjoin to this heresy the denial likewise of the resurrection of the flesh. The Pharisees I pretermit, who were "divided" from the Jews by their superimposing of certain additaments to the law, which fact likewise made them worthy of receiving this very name; and, together with them, the Herodians likewise, who said that Herod was Christ.

The Sadducees, being senseless, perhaps did not even know God, and therefore do not believe that there will be a resurrection. "The Pharisees acknowledge both." However, the Sadducees do not acknowledge three things (the resurrection, the existence of an Angel, and the existence of a Spirit). How then does the writer say "both"? But Spirit and Angel are one and the same; moreover, "both" is also said of three things. The writings of unlettered men and fishermen should not be measured by the standard of elegant outward refinement that distinguishes the compositions of professional writers — from this heresies are born.

"What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" These words are obscure or something is missing for the completion of the sentence, which would be, "If a spirit or an angel has told to him what to say in order to avoid dangers, he is being deceptive." Otherwise, what the Pharisees say must be understood in the sense, "Look! He's clearly talking about the resurrection, since he's been taught either this teaching on the resurrection by the Holy Spirit or an angel."

"And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?" Why did they not plead for him before this? Do you observe, how, when the passions give way, the truth is discovered? Where is the crime, say they, if an angel has spoken to him, or a spirit? Paul gives them no handle against him.

"And the scribes," etc. Look; the tribune also hears that the Pharisees have acquitted him of the charges, and have given sentence in his favor, and with greater confidence carries him off by force.

"If a spirit spoke to him." The statement can be understood in two ways. For something is lacking to complete the sense so that it may be read therefore: If a spirit or an angel spoke to him, it is unclear, he says; or as the phrase must be taken from the Pharisees: If a spirit spoke to him or an angel, instead of "Behold, I speak about the resurrection," it is evident that the word about the resurrection was taught either by the Holy Spirit or by an angel. [AMMONIUS]

Something is lacking here for the completeness of the thought. The Spirit, it is said, or an Angel suggested to him the content of his speech — it is unknown. Or this is said from the perspective of the Pharisees, and in that case the words "if a spirit or an Angel spoke to him" should be understood thus: "Behold, he speaks of the resurrection; evidently, either the Spirit or an Angel imparted to him the teaching about the resurrection."

"And when there arose a great dissension, the tribune fearing lest Paul should be pulled in pieces. "When a great dissension arose between Pharisees and Sadducees, the tribune, fearing lest Paul should be pulled in pieces by the Sadducees, ordered him to be taken back to the castle. In the night, the Lord said to Paul: "Be constant, Paul; for as thou hast testified of me here, so must thou preach my name also in the city of Rome." On the following day, forty Jews made a conspiracy and resolved to kill Paul. Paul's sister's son heard of it and told Paul in the castle. Paul asked the guards to bring the young man to the tribune. When the young man had told the tribune everything in order, the tribune commanded him to let no one know it had been told to him.

"And when there arose a great dissension, the tribune, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle." The tribune is afraid of his being pulled in pieces, now that he has said that he is a Roman: and the matter was not without danger. Do you observe that Paul had a right to profess himself a Roman? Else, neither would the tribune have been afraid now. So it remains that the soldiers must bear him off by force.

"The commander, fearing." He was afraid lest they tear Paul apart, since he had said that he was a Roman, and the matter was not far from danger. Finally the soldiers snatch him away, I think, as their own property.

"And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." See what strong consolation! First he praises him, "As thou hast testified to My cause in Jerusalem;" then He does not leave him to be afraid for the uncertain issue of his journey to Rome: for thither also, He saith, thou shalt not depart alone, but thou shalt also have all this boldness of speech. Hereby it was made manifest, not only that he should be saved, but that he should be so in order to great crowns in the great city.

But why did He not appear to him before he fell into the danger? Because it is evermore in the afflictions that God comforts us; for He appears more wished-for, while even in the dangers He exercises and trains us. Besides, he was then at ease, when free from bonds; but now great perils were awaiting him. "And the Lord," it said, "stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." Yet even after He has appeared to him, He again suffers him to be saved by man's means.

Some one might say, How is it, that having been told, "Thou must also bear witness of Me in Rome", he, as if unbelieving, did this? God forbid: nay, he did it, because he so strongly believed. For it would have been a tempting of God to be bold on account of that declaration, and to cast himself into numberless dangers, and to say: "Let us see if God is able even thus to deliver me." But not so does Paul; no, he does his part, all that in him lies, committing the whole to God.

Scripture says, "Fear not to go down into Egypt," which means, When you come against "the principalities and powers and rulers of the darkness of this world"10—those figuratively called Egypt—do not fear or recoil. If you wish to know why you should not fear, listen to my promise: "There, I will make of you a great nation, and I shall go down into Egypt with you, and I shall call you back from there in the end." He is, therefore, not afraid to go down into Egypt. He fears neither the combats of this world nor the trials of demonic adversaries. Hear, then, what the apostle Paul says: "More than those others have I labored, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." Even in Jerusalem, when a plot had been set in motion against him and he toiled in combat for the word and the preaching of the Lord, beside him the Lord stood and said these same things that are said to Israel: "Fear not, Paul, for just as you have been my witness in Jerusalem, so you must also be my witness in Rome."

The Lord appeared to Paul, since He is a comforter in afflictions. But He did not appear to Paul before he had fallen into danger (the Lord strengthens us also through afflictions), and after His appearance He deigns to save his life by human means.