Acts 23

Though the tribune has supposedly gathered the council to learn more about the charges of the Jews against Paul (22:30), Luke has Paul take control of the meeting and begin to make a speech.

Paul is not intimidated by the council, which he looks keenly in the eye (v. 1). He refers to the members of the council as “brothers,” as equals, certainly not as superiors or judges. And Paul declares unequivocally that his manner of life, his citizenship before God has been conducted in “good conscience”

His point is that, despite his being in Roman custody and standing before the Jewish supreme council, nothing within Paul convicts him of any wrongdoing; in fact, his conscience exonerates him.

Our Conscience

The conscience is that within humans that either convicts or exonerates that person (Rom 2:15; 1 Cor 10:25, 27, 28; 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Tim 3:9). The human conscience is not infallible. It can be weak, leading to a “false conviction,” a conviction that, no less, still affects the person in a negative way (1 Cor 8:7, 10, 12).

Paul is declaring before the council that his conscience is clear, despite his having participated in the persecution of believers. Paul’s conscience did not at that time convict him, for the conscience is not infallible. Phil 3:6, where he states in one breath that he was a persecutor of the church and in the next that he was blameless with respect to righteousness under the law.

Crooked Leaders

For some reason the high priest Ananias orders that Paul be slapped for making such a statement The lack of motive may reveal the narrator’s motive: the high priest does not come off looking judicious or fair for ordering the corporal punishment of a man who is guilty of nothing more than declaring his innocence.

Paul’s boldness continues

Though being struck, Paul, declares that it is God who will strike Ananias. Luke’s readers who knew their history would know that, in fact, Jewish zealots struck down Ananias at the outbreak of the revolt against Rome (AD 66). In calling the high priest a “whitewashed wall,” Paul was employing a vivid metaphor for hypocrisy. Perhaps alluding to Ezekiel 13:10–15, which employs the image of the whitewashed wall to refer to false prophets, Paul portrays the high priest as one whose inner character is corrupt and false and who wears only a veneer of holiness.

Paul makes the hypocrisy explicit as he declares that this one who sits to render judgment in accordance with the Jewish law himself violates the very law it is his place to uphold. Paul is alluding to Leviticus 19:15, which states that one shall not render unjust judgment and shall judge the neighbor with justice. Paul is showing himself to be something of an “insider” on matters of Jewish law who can spar even with the high priest.

Ananias’s puppets ask Paul rhetorically whether he would revile God’s high priest (v. 4). Paul’s response may betray actual ignorance; he really did not know who the high priest was.

Historically, that might be so (there is no way contemporary readers can know), but the Lukan Paul likely would not be so out of the loop. Perhaps Paul is employing biting irony: “How could I have known that one who flagrantly flouted God’s law would be the high priest?”

Paul, portrayed by Luke as the loyal Jew, shows proper deference, if not to the man Ananias, at least to the office. He, again as the loyal Jew, legitimates such deference by quoting the Torah (Exod 22:27)—the very Torah that Ananias so casually violates.

The Religious Leaders

Paul, totally in control of the session, notices that the assembly is divided between Pharisees and Sadducees. Historically it is likely that the Sadducees, more economically and ideologically aligned with the priestly aristocracy, would have held the sway of power on the ruling council.

Paul explicitly identifies himself with Pharisees, even claiming a Pharisaic pedigree. He then claims that he is on trial “concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.

Paul’s claim to be “a son of Pharisees” could mean that Paul’s ancestors were Pharisees. Since most evidence indicates that Pharisaic schools existed only in Palestine that would imply either that Paul’s ancestors became Pharisees before they migrated to Tarsus, where Paul, according to Acts 22:3, was born.

Paul’s affirmation that he stands on trial with respect to the hope of the resurrection
serves in the narrative to set Paul and the other Pharisees apart from the Sadducees.

Luke specifically states that Pharisees, unlike Sadducees, believed in the resurrection (vv. 7–8).“the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three” (v. 8).

The Resurrection of the Dead

Little is said in the Old Testament of this belief. Some statements are actually metaphorical expressions relating to the restoration of the nation of Israel (cf. Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:13–14; Hos 6:1–2). Dan 12:2 (mid-2d century BC) offers the first clear expression of the hope. As evidenced in the conflict of the Sanhedrin in Acts 23:8, there was no uniform belief among Jews regarding afterlife or resurrection. Views seemed to exist within a wide range:

“• Sheol was the place of death where one was cut off from God (Sir 17:27–28). There is, effectively, no afterlife in any meaningful sense.

• Belief in immortality of the soul, though such immortality is not understood as an intrinsic property of the soul, but a gift of God, preserved for the righteous (Wis 1–6).

• A resurrection of the righteous, understood quite literally (2 Macc 7): it is implied that mutilated bodies would be restored (2 Macc 14:46). 1 Enoch seems to envision a resurrection of the righteous, with the evil people being destroyed (1 En. 91:10–11).

• A resurrection of both the just and unjust to receive their due rewards (2 Bar 50–51; 2 Esd 7:32–44).”
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Resurrection: Early Judaism and Christianity,” ABD 5.684–91; David Rolph Seely, “Resurrection,” EDB 1120–22.

Interpreters generally explain the Sadducees’ rejection of belief in resurrection by alluding to the fact that these Jews recognized only the Pentateuch as authoritative and normative.3 The Pentateuch offers no explicit teaching about resurrection, yet the Pentateuch has more than a score of references to angels (Gen 16:7–11), as well as several references to a divine spirit (e.g., Gen 6:3; 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 11:25–29; 24:2; 27:18).

Josephus on the Sadducees

“The Sadducees … do away with Fate.… They maintain that man has the free choice of good or evil.… As for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the under world, and rewards, they will have none of them.” (J. W. 2.164–65)
Recognizing that Paul was in some very real sense one of their own, some of the scribes of the Pharisees actually rise to Paul’s defense: “We find nothing wrong with this man” (v. 9b). [Scribes] The suggestion that it might even be possible that an angel or spirit had spoken to Paul (v. 9c) If “angel or spirit” refers to a way of talking about “afterlife,” these scribes appear to be open to considering Paul’s claim to have heard and spoken to the resurrected Jesus—that is, his “angel or spirit.”6

At its most basic level, a scribe was one who could read and write. Hence, scribes were essential for keeping records, both in matters of business and politics. those competent in matters of Jewish law (cf. Ezra 7:6, 10). Sirach presents the scribe as the thoughtful interpreter of Scripture,

Scribes are often presented as experts in matters of biblical and legal interpretation, as well as application (cf. Mark 1:22; 2:6; 7:1–5). Very often, scribes are associated with the priests or chief priest(s) as part of the official leadership of the Sanhedrin (twenty-two references). Even in this capacity, they might very well have given expression to their primary loyalty to the Pharisaic party.

The association of Paul with the Pharisees, especially with reference to the common belief in resurrection, would have been most relevant to Luke’s audience of readers. During the time of Luke’s composition the Pharisaic element of Jewish leadership was emerging as the rulers of the Sanhedrin.

It is Luke’s honest conviction that fellowship between Pharisaism and Christianity is in the end possible; the Pharisees also hope for the Messiah and await the resurrection of the dead.… The wild tumult between Pharisees and Sadducees shows that Christianity is a matter within Judaism, even if it gives rise to such strong passions.

If representatives of Pharisaic Judaism, the leading voice within the Judaism of Luke’s time, also affirm the hope of the resurrection and are at least open to the possibility that the angel or spirit of Jesus did speak to Paul, Luke’s readers receive yet one more affirmation that their belief in Jesus is not out of step with the religion from which their faith emerged.

The Council is Divided

The council is divided enough over the issue of “the hope of the resurrection” that the tribune must, once again, come to Paul’s rescue (v. 10). This scene does not present the council in a good light. The last time the tribune had to rescue Paul responsibility lay with a mob in the outer courts of the temple. The Jewish Sanhedrin acts no better.

Paul, back in custody, receives a vision, not from an “angel or spirit,” but from the living Lord. This confirms that the hope of the resurrection is a realized hope (v. 11). offers Paul (and readers) assurance that the gospel will “reach the ends of the earth,” as prophesied in Acts 1:8.

The Jews Joined in on a Conspiracy and the Romans Took Paul Away

“We have bound ourselves with an oath,” vv. 12–15

The following day “the Jews, some Jews” who numbered more than forty, conspired to assassinate Paul (vv. 12–14). They are so determined and zealous that they bound themselves with an oath, swearing not to eat or drink, until they had accomplished their mission. Their oath was, “May we damned with damnation if we do not accomplish this!”

The conspirators feel that elements within the Sanhedrin, the chief priests and elders, will conspire with them. The zealots urge these leaders of the Sanhedrin, along with the whole of the council, to ask the tribune to bring Paul back to the council for further examination (v. 15). Reference to the rest of “the council”, they would dupe the larger council into becoming unwitting co-conspirators. This group of chief priests and elders could not alone, without consent of the larger council, persuade the tribune to bring Paul back to them.

“Do not be persuaded by them,”

Paul’s nephew, the son of his sister, got wind of the plot.

Paul commands one of the centurions to take his nephew to the tribune, informing him only that the young man had something to tell the Roman officer (v. 17). word had spread that this was a Roman citizen who had been illegally bound and almost flogged and the centurion thought it best to err on the side of caution, giving Paul the benefit of the doubt.
The centurion escorts Paul’s nephew to the tribune, informing his superior that the young man had something to tell him (v. 18).

Paul’s nephew repeats the gist of the plot. Knowing now of Paul’s Roman citizenship it is most believable that the tribune would not take offense at the advice; in fact, he would certainly not want to be responsible for the murder of a Roman citizen by Jewish brigands. Appropriately, the tribune urges Paul’s nephew to keep the matter between the two of them (v. 22).

Take him safely to the governor

The tribune makes immediate plans to send Paul to Caesarea. the Roman governor. The tribune simply saw the present threatening situation as an opportunity to effect the change of venue.8
The tribune, responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem, as well as wanting to watch out for his own career, had nothing to lose by removing this source of irritation.

He orders a large contingency of Roman troops to move Paul to Caesarea that night (v. 23). Moving out under the cover of darkness would make sense if there were reason to suspect that Jewish assassins were preparing Paul’s murder. The size of the Roman force seems to defy credibility. Two hundred soldiers, seventy cavalry, and an additional 200 spearmen would have constituted one-half the entire Jerusalem force!

The tribune, whose name readers now finally learn is Claudius Lysias, composes a letter to accompany Paul to the Judean governor Felix. Paul would have likely heard the letter read before Felix, given that it was the practice of ancients to read aloud, even if reading to themselves. Luke could actually have learned the gist of the letter from Paul.

Lysias would certainly have written some type of letter explaining to the governor why Paul was being transferred to his custody.

The letter follows the standard form of ancient missives and certainly conveys “the facts of the case” to a superior in a manner appropriate to the setting. In v. 27, Lysias states succinctly enough the relevant facts: the Jews had seized Paul and threatened his life. Lysias and his soldiers had rescued him. Lysias is not lying to say that he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but he is spinning the fact to his advantage to imply that it was his having learned of this fact that motivated him to rescue Paul. And, of course, Lysias makes no mention of the near flogging.

Lysias summarizes accurately in v. 28 the essence of the hearing before the Sanhedrin. Lysias also shares with Felix, and with readers, his assessment of the situation from the standpoint of Roman law. Lysias is convinced, as other Roman officials who preceded him (18:15), that disputes between Paul and his Jewish accusers have to do exclusively with matters of Jewish law and are not deserving of Roman punishment, be it death or incarceration.

This is a persistent theme in Acts: Christians, as irritating as they might be, are not criminals; they do not violate the laws of the Roman Empire (16:20–21, 38–39; 18:14; 25:8, 24–27; 26:32). Lysias concludes the letter by informing Felix of the plot against Paul’s life and letting the governor know that Paul’s accusers would be appearing before him to present their charges against Paul (v. 30).

They Arrive in Caesarea

Paul and his military escort made the trip overnight to Antipatris (v. 31). From there, the foot soldiers returned to Jerusalem, and the balance of the trip was made only by the cavalry (v. 32). Antipatris, which Herod the Great built in honor of his father, Antipater, was located about thirty-five to forty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, about halfway between Jerusalem and Caesarea.

It appears that Paul was now far enough away from the immediate threat that an escort of seventy cavalry would provide sufficient security; this allows the foot soldiers to return to Jerusalem and bring the military presence in that city back to almost full strength.

Even assuming the shorter distance of thirty-five miles, this is an incredible distance for 400 soldiers on foot to cover overnight. Moving at the relatively rapid clip of four to five miles per hour, it would have taken the soldiers seven to nine hours to reach Antipatris.

Witherington, who is regularly inclined to give Luke the benefit of the doubt, takes him at his word: “It does not pay to underestimate what Roman troops were capable of when a crisis situation was involved.”

The narrator does not tell readers exactly when Paul and his escort arrived in Caesarea. He simply notes only that, upon their arrival, they delivered Paul and Lysias’s letter to the governor Upon reading the letter Felix inquired as to Paul’s provincial home. When he learned that Paul was from Cilicia (v. 34), he determined that he could hear the case. Cilicia and Judea were both under the single provincial administration of the imperial legate of Syria. Hence, Felix, as an official within that region, would be competent to hear the case.

Felix’s concern to make sure that it is appropriate for him to hear the case might raise the expectation in readers that Paul will get a fairer hearing than he received in Jerusalem. While Felix was no paragon of judicial virtue, as we will see later in Acts, he is clearly a breath of fresh air compared to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, whose own presiding officer is a “whitewashed wall” (cf. v. 3) and is complicit in an assassination attempt.

Just tell the truth in any defense and God will honor it.