Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 23

After Paul described his journeys to the Jerusalem Church (Ch 21), and Paul completes his Nazirite vow, he is recognised by Asian Jews who stirred up a crowd against Paul, who was arrested, perhaps for his own safety (Ch 21). The Roman commander allowed Paul to make along speech describing his conversion on the road to Damascus (Ch 22). After Paul claimed his rights as a born Roman citizen, higher than Lysias, he was freed but made to appear before the Sanhedrin (22:30).
We may puzzle over the improbabilities of this account: Lysias' recourse to seek help of Sanhedrin; he probably is not entitled to convene them, or to decide their agenda; is it a meeting, or a trial as vv 6 & 30 indicate?; the striking of Paul; Paul's protestation of not having recognised the High Priest; Paul's manipulation of the differences between Sadducees and Pharisees. Clearly all intended to cross-refer to the Sanhedrin arraignments of Jesus (Lk 22), Peter and John (4:5-22); the apostles (5:26-40); and Stephen (6:12-7:60). Builds Paul into this continuum: trials of earthly Jesus continued in 4 trials in Acts, where the accused is the Christ of the kerygma.
1 "I have lived" literally "fulfilled my role in society" or "conducted my life" (Cf Phil 1:27). "clear conscience" cf 24:16. "up to this day" implies no break between life as Jew and as Christian Cf 24:4-6. Having an upright conscience is a central point of Paul's spirituality - he rejects any suggestion he was disrespectful to the law. Do we have clear consciences?
2 Cf Jesus being struck, Jn 18:19-24. Ananias was high priest AD 47-59 (Josephus). Paul has started carefully asserting that his conscience is clear, an important part of Paul's spirituality, but he is rudely interrupted. So he goes on the offensive: from witness to his own character to witness to the truth of scripture and the hope of resurrection. A gritty performance - not a passive prisoner.
3 "God will strike you": Ananias was assasinated AD66. Is this hindsight by Luke? "The Lord will smite you" is an approporiate curse against one who disobeys the commandments (Deut 28:22). "whitewashed wall": cf whitewashed sepulchres, Matt 23:27, Ezek 13:10-16. "the law" cf Lev 19:15. Paul has been struck in a way that flouts the law, because the witnesses have not been heard - proper procedure should be followed. Similar charge to Stephen's (7:53). Has Luke heard of these snatches from Jesus' trial, and includes them here to draw parallel between Paul and Jesus? Seems to assume readers knew Gospels of Matt and John. Did Paul lose his temper? Should we lose ours, on occasions?
5 Cf Exod 22:27. Improbable response? Or perhaps not sarcasm: to show Paul does not seek to undermine legitimate Jewish authority, even under provocation. How could he know who is High Priest now? He does wish to dishonour the office of High Priest, only its present holder, who was indeed corrupt and greedy. He withdraws his accusation of hypocrisy, when informed of the High Priest's identity, out of reverence for the Mosaic law. Or perhaps implies that the High Priest was unrecognisable because of his hypocritical whitewashed behaviour? As if saying "I would never have thought someone who gave an order against the law like that could be High Priest". Also Paul makes it clear that he respects Jewish institutions and the Law, and defines himself in terms of these.
6 Cf Jesus before the Sanhedrin and His argument with Sadducees over resurrection (Lk 20:27). Luke has Paul claim to be a Pharisee now (though a Christian), as Paul himself does (Phil 3:5). No more can this be proved than his claim to be a Roman citizen. Perhaps indicates extent of Pharisee sect in diaspora. Cf 26:5-6, where Paul does make a distinction. "hope in the resurrection" - better translation is "hope and the resurrection" - a complex idea expressed by linking two words with "and": Paul's hope is the resurrection. Luke identifies the law with promise, although Pauls keeps them distinct (Gal 3:16-29, Rom 4:13-17). Paul had started as a calm witness to his own blameless life, but after the rude interruption he switches to an offensive as proclaimer of the truth of scripture (23:5) and the hope of resurrection (23:6). Not a passive performance but aggressive, manipulative? If he perceives both Pharisees and Sadducees are present, unlikely not to detect Ananias was High Priest. By asserting he is on trial because of belief in the resurrection, Paul not only diverts attention from himself, in the hope of awakening their love of truth, but gains Pharisees as supporters - who later proclaim his innocence (23:9). Paul also diverts charges about law and temple to those about resurrection, which is the core of his mission and he now proclaims as the crux of his trial, thus separating messianist from non-messianist Jews. But Paul proclaims at this point only the resurrection of the dead, not of Jesus, (left to 26:23), so Pharisees can accept this belief, and so possibly come later to believe in Jesus, as some did (15:5). Proclaiming belief in the resurrection of Jesus as the realisation of the hope of Israel exposes us for first time to most fundamental issue dividing Paul from his opponents. Paul appeals to a shared belief in the possibility of the resurrection in order to confront the Pharisees with the claim that in Jesus the resurrection has happened. By the time Luke is writing, High Priest and Temple have gone: Luke's target is the Pharisaism that has become "normative Judaism" in Luke's time. By refusing to acknowledge Jesus' resurrection the dominant form of Judaism (in Luke's time) is being unfaithful to its own traditions. For Luke, Paul represents the authentic Pharisaic position. By admitting the peripheral possibility that "perhaps" a spirit or and angel spoke to Paul, the Pharisees show their bad faith: by admitting this possibility, they imply that there is no reason why it could not have been "the spirit of Jesus" that appeared to Paul, assuming he is not a fraud. Luke's specific complaint against the Pharisees: although their theology is right, they are closed to the plan of God - their openness to continued revelation through the "oral tora" makes worse their failure to recognise the prophet Jesus. Gamaliel had right theology (5:32-40) but wrong response since it rejected God's call; Christians from the pharisaic party (15:1,5) aligned themselves with those who made circumcision a condition of salvation, showing themselves closed to the new thing God was doing among the nations (=Gentiles); now the Pharisaic party, though close to the messianists in its belief in resurrection, is to blame for not following through that belief and acknowledging at least the possibility of its realisation in Jesus. Like the Chief Priest whose behaviour makes him unrecognisable as leader, their closure to the message of Jesus closes them from their own "hope of the resurrection".
7 It is an organised assembly that is now divided by Paul's words. But this belief in resurrection also shows continuity between Paul's former and present lives.
8 Perhaps a widely believed stereotype of Sadducee beliefs. Josephus also says that "Sadducees held that the soul perishes with the body". No evidence in Bible that Sadducees did not believe in spirits or angels, though this would be consistent with conservative attitude of keeping "no observance apart from the laws" (Josephus). Serves as counterpoint to Pharisees' reference to spirit or angel in v 9. To Luke only the Pharisees have true Jewish beliefs: Sadducees are heretics all along. Paul is a true Jewish believer, supported by other Pharisees, and persecuted by heretical Sadducees for witnessing to the Resurrection. Luke does not credit the Sadducees with having beliefs rigorously based on the Torah. Pharisees' belief in resurrection builds on traditions from Maccabees and Daniel, attested by Josephus and firmly written in the Mishnah.
9 Paul's supporters acknowledge possible reality of Paul's Damascus vision, in accord with their theology. Not accepting that Jesus appeared to Paul, but admitting that he may have had some spiritual experience - fits with their beliefs and also usable against the Sadducees. Scribes took down testimony, but may also be "3 rows of disciples of the sages".
10 The highest Jewish court is no more orderly than the Jewish mob - again Paul has to be rescued.
11 The consoling vision of Jesus marks end of Paul's testimony in Jerusalem, and places Rome as his mission's next goal, both being necessary ("must") as part of God's plan (Cf 19:21). Paul's visions both show God's approval for his actions and spell out God's further programme for him - Paul will continue to witness to Jesus, but in Rome and as a prisoner. How has Paul witnessed to Jesus in Jerusalem, since Paul did not mention Jesus' name in his speech in Ch 22? Luke equates witness to the risen Jesus with belief in the resurrection as held by the Pharisees. Christ's reassurance that Paul will witness to Him in Rome, even as a prisoner under the protection of the Romans, prepares us for Paul's next journey. Paul will no longer seek just to defend himself, but to bear witness to the Gospel, continuing the same work as a prisoner as when free (Eph 6:18-20). Does God encourage us? How? How should we react to despondency? What can we do to help others who are down?
12 The very next day the plot is hatched which will move Paul one step nearer to Rome. Lynching of traitors by fanatical patriots common just before the Jewish wars. Instead of fasting for good reasons, as do Paul and the Christians, the plotters vow to fast until Paul is struck dead - a reason condemned by Isaiah (58:3-10), and an even worse violation of their law than striking him on the mouth.
14 Literally "put themselves under anathema" - one wonders what became of them when the plot failed? The plotters having failed with the whole Sanhedrin, go directly to "the chief priests and elders", who were prejudiced against Paul (23:1-5).
15 Although pretending to accuse Paul before the law, and seeking a more thorough examination of Paul, the plotters are clearly intending to break the law by lynching him without due process. An even worse violation of the law by those supposed to uphold it (23:2-3). Contrasts with Paul's strict education under Gamaliel "according to our ancestral law" (22:3).
16 Apparently abandoned by his colleagues, the "we" who came to Jerusalem with him, Paul is saved not by an angel, but by an unknown and un-named youth. Paul's nephew hears about the plot - perhaps he had Zealot connections. Reminds us of Paul's family in Jerusalem, according to local tradition (Cf 22:3). Only other mention of his family is Rom 16:7-11. Contrasts with that other "young man" Eutychus who paid too little attention. Presumably Paul's nephew took a risk in not keeping his head down. Do we do the right thing, even at some risk? Are we using our teenagers' abilities wisely?
17 Paul's status is rising!! He now "summons" the centurion and sends him to the tribune! Presumably Paul is trading on his higher status by being born a Roman citizen.
20 Seems unlikely that Lysias would have agreed to their request, after previous fiasco.
21 The youth tells Lysias authoritatively "do not believe them", but leaves the decision to the Roman. 3^rd of 4 times the plot is told.
22 This secretive encounter, with the powerful Tribune requiring the bold youth to tell no-one, heightens the story's dramatic tension and popular interest. We wait to see if the Tribune will spring into action at the youth's behest, and save Paul.
23 Quite an escort for one Roman citizen - and innocent at that: 200 soldiers, 200 auxiliaries (local police?) and 70 horsemen - plus two centurions! About 12 times the number of plotters. The whole cohort was about 500-1000 soldiers, so Paul's escort was about half the troops in Jerusalem! And "mounts" for Paul - presumably for him and his belongings. Why did Lysias do this? Perhaps a wise precaution against a possible desert ambush, which could result in the tribune being blamed for Paul's death. Or why does Luke say this? Caesarea, Hellenist port-city and the Governor's seat, was the capital of Palestine for 600 years after Herod built it 37-34BC. It is about 60 miles from Jerusalem, on the coast, 30 miles north of Joppa, south of Mt Carmel. "nine pm" = third hour of the night. This threat to Paul now appears more than a small squabble: it is a fixed and fanatical intention to kill Paul. A real hardening of the developing opposition to Paul among the Jews of the diaspora. And involving the Jewish leadership, at least in Jerusalem: they are closed to the message from the prophet Jesus, envious of the success of this message among the people, and moved to seek murder of its preachers. Clearly any debate can take place only within the protection of Rome. Paul's claim on his Jewish heritage is utterly rejected, and he is given no fair hearing by leaders of his own people. The details embellish this contrast: Paul's nephew is heard out by the tribune, who goes to great lengths to safeguard Paul, sending a fair letter to Felix, with his own fair conclusion. Felix follows correct procedure, and further safeguards Paul. All much better behaviour than shown by the Jewish leadership. We might conclude "Jews bad, Rome good", but Luke will show this is not the whole story: some Jewish leaders are open to dialogue (28:17-22), some Roman leaders are less moral (24:26). Luke's main point is that God is making it possible for Paul to "bear witness as well in Rome" (23:11), before the Roman system too rejects him.
24 Josephus says Claudius sent Felix as governor of Judea in AD 52. According to Tacitus, Felix "exerted royal power with the mind of a slave". Suppressed riots, but very cruel, which led to his recall in AD60, before the great Jewish uprising in AD66.
25 The only secular letter in NT.
26 Antonius Felix Procurator of Judea AD 52-60. A somewhat edited letter, with its Hellenistic opening. The Roman viewpoint shows clearly yet again the apostles being persecuted without having committed any crimes against the civil law.
27 Not quite what happened! Conciseness hides the potential flogging! Cf 21:31-33, 22:25-29.
29 Letter only mentions accusations about the law, and not the charge of bringing Gentiles into the Temple (21:28b). Corresponds to Gallio's conclusion (18:15). Luke is building a case that the messianists are not revolutionaries threatening Rome, but a legitimate variation within Judaism, which therefore should be settled within Judaism, rather than by the Roman judicial system. (Cf 25:19, 26:3).
30 Lysias' letter states that Paul is innocent. He has been removed from Jerusalem solely for his own protection. But his accusers are entitled to have their say, so Paul must still be held in prison. Lysias cannot have notified his accusers when writing the letter, but this is directed to the reader. Lysias also omits to mention his initial order to have Paul flogged, and claims to have rescued Paul because he was aware of Paul's Roman citizenship (23:27). When is it right to be "economical with the truth"? Job interview? Work report?
31 Antipatris may be Aphek, about 10 miles north-east of Joppa, about 25 miles from Jerusalem, and 35 miles south-west of Caesarea. Founded by Herod the Great in honour of his father, Antipater.
32 Having removed Paul out of immediate danger, the soldiers return, leaving an escort of "only" 70 horsemen, who can therefore move faster! Truly we are assured of Paul's importance, however improbable the exciting story or the size of the escort.
34 Tarsus is in Cilicia Cf 21:39, 22:3. Felix could have remitted Paul to the province of Syria, which included Cilicia at that time, but chose to try him himself. Perhaps because it would be difficult for his accusers to travel to Syria. Felix quite properly interviews Paul, but then waits for his accusers to arrive.
35 Herod's Praetorium: both a residence and stronghold. Provincial governors resided in Herod's palace since AD6. Last time Paul was in Caesarea was in happier circumstances. How might he have felt? How do we cope with life's ups and downs? Does our commitment to God vary with circumstances?