CHAPTER 23
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” Acts 23:1
Paul looked at the council steadfastly and with a fixed gaze as the Greek word atensias makes clear.1 Robertson wonders if he was looking to see if he recognized any of those faces from the days that he was a member.2
By the opening address he may have been placing himself on equal footing with the council. The normal address to the Sanhedrin should have been something like this: “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” 3
The apostle immediately declared that he had fulfilled his duty to God. This statement seemed to have irritated the high priest. Stott may have the best explanation of why this happened. He says, “The most likely explanation is that Ananias understood Paul’s words as a claim that, though now a Christian, he was still a good Jew…” 4
He claimed here that he was a man of good conscience. He had made similar claims on other occasions (cf. cf. 20:18-21, 26-27; Rom. 15:19; Phil. 3:6; 2 Tim. 4:7). The Greek word for conscience is suneidēsis and it has the meaning of “joint knowledge.” 5 Conscience is that inner guide that God has given us. It is not infallible and the conscience can be hardened and defiled. To put it in computer terms: “garbage in – garbage out.”
The conscience is much like a compass. The compass points to north unless it is interfered with by other magnetic forces. There are a few places on earth where a compass is virtually useless because of such forces. Through repeated sin a person can dull the voice of conscience. Through false doctrine a person can come to believe that wrong is right and right is wrong. So obviously, a person can end up with an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22; 1 Tim. 4:2). Wiersbe says, “Conscience may be compared to a window that lets in the light. God’s law is the light, and the cleaner the window is, the more the light shines in.” 6 Paul had not abused the voice of conscience within him.
“At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth” (23:2). This priest was Ananias the son of Nebedinus, who became high priest in the year AD 47 and held the office until AD 59. This priest had a horrible reputation. Josephus the historian described him as an insolent and quick-tempered person.7 Also, Josephus added that he was a hoarder of money, who sent his servants to the threshing-floors to take away the tithes by violence.8 This slap on the face reminds us of how this same group of people previously treated Jesus (Jn. 18:22).
“Then Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!’” (23:3). We forget sometimes that Paul was a human being and not some sort of super saint. Like many of us, Paul had a temper, and at this point it seemed to have gotten a bit out of control. Paul called the man a “whitewashed wall.” In those days there was great concern about becoming ritually unclean. One could do this by coming in contact with a tomb. For this reason, the tombs were often whitewashed so they could be easily noticed and avoided. Paul was calling the man a hypocrite, since the tombs looked nice and clean on the outside but inside they were filled with dead men’s bones (cf. Matt. 23:27-28).
What was apparently unknown to Paul was that he was addressing Israel’s high priest. We might add that Paul was speaking an accurate word of prophecy by his hot retort. Just a few years later (AD 66), during the Jewish war with Rome, this priest was dragged from his hiding place and murdered by insurgents.9
Paul was correct in his assessment that the blow on his face was unlawful. According to the law of God only a person found guilty could be beaten (Deut. 25:1-2). The apostle probably had a better understanding of the law than most of the legal scholars assembled in the Sanhedrin that day.
“Those who were standing near Paul said, ‘How dare you insult God’s high priest!’ Paul replied, ‘Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people’” (23:4-5). Obviously, Paul did not know that he was addressing Israel’s high priest. Many attempts have been made to explain Paul’s apparent inability to recognize him. Some scholars have felt that Paul had poor eyesight.10 Barker and Kohlenberger state that, “…this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or wore his robes of office…Paul presumably did not know who the high priest was in AD 58.” 11
The apostle did know that disrespect to the high priest was forbidden in the law. In Exodus 22:28 it is written, “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.” Knowing this, Paul immediately apologized.
PAUL’S STRATEGY
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, ‘My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.’” Acts 23:6
Bruce says, “…he took stock of the fact that the Sanhedrin consisted in the main of the Sadducean majority and the strong Pharisaic minority…so now he addresses the Sanhedrin as a Pharisee.” 12
We may wonder exactly how Paul considered the resurrection doctrine to be the basis of the conflict with the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the resurrection was the core of Christianity and the core of much conflict. Without the resurrection, the Christian faith was said to be in vain (1 Cor. 15:17).
“When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things)” (23:7-8). The Sadducees were much different than the Pharisees. They were the ruling priestly and temple class. They were also strict materialists. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, or in spirits or angels. Chrysostom said of them: “The Sadducees know of nothing incorporeal, perhaps not even God, so thick-headed are they.” 13 They accepted only the five books of Moses, so they gave no relevance to the other writings or the prophets. Since they were closely tied to the temple, the Sadducee party perished in AD 70 with the temple’s destruction.
The Pharisee party accepted the whole of the Bible plus the traditions of the elders. They did believe in the resurrection, as well as angelology and demonology. The Pharisees did survive the destruction of the temple and went on to make up normative Judaism in following centuries. Barker and Kohlenberger state, “…Phariseeism in Paul’s day was not as stereotyped as it later became under rabbinic development.” 14
We can understand how some Pharisees as well as some priests became Christians. The Sadducees could not readily convert to Christianity. For a Sadducee to become a Christian meant to abandon all the distinctive theological tenets of the party, while a Pharisee could become a Christian and still remain a Pharisee.15
For the most part, Sadducees and Pharisees were bitter enemies. It seems that the one thing that could unite them was their opposition to Jesus (Matt. 16:1; Jn. 11:47-53) and the apostle Paul.16 Keener says, “Pharisees and Sadducees were notorious for their disagreements, especially over the doctrine of the resurrection…” 17
THE SANHEDRIN DIVIDED
There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” Acts 23:9
All the members argued vigorously or strove together (Gk. diemachonto). This verb speaks of a “lively scrap” going on between the groups, with the Pharisees taking Paul’s side.18 The Pharisees, while not terribly fond of Paul, were less fond of the Sadducees. For them, it was quite reasonable that a spirit had appeared and spoken to him.
“The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks” (23:10). In the violence of the dispute it looked like Paul might be torn in pieces (Gk. diaspaō). This description of violence is only seen in one other place in the New Testament (Mk. 5:4), where the demon possessed man tore apart his chains.19
Correctly assessing the violent situation the commander ordered his troops to rescue Paul and remove him to the barracks. This was now the second time that the commander had rescued him. Utley says, “…Twice now the Roman government had saved Paul’s life in Jerusalem. No wonder Paul saw the government as a minister of God (cf. Rom. 13).” 20
“The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, ‘Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome’” (23:11). Paul had barely escaped with his life now on two recent occasions. He must have felt quite discouraged and perhaps even somewhat afraid for his life. It was at this very low time in Paul’s ministry that the Lord Jesus chose to appear to him once more. Most of us Christians go through our whole Christian lives without a single appearance of the Lord Jesus. Why would it be necessary for the Lord to appear to Paul on so many occasions? We must remember that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He was laying the foundations in the Gentile church for centuries to come. It was necessary for the Lord to stand by him and guide him in this great endeavor.
This divine appearance probably did several important things for Paul. It assured him that he had taken the right approach with the Sanhedrin, since there was not a whisper of reproach from the Lord.21 The appearance and words of Jesus no doubt gave Paul great confidence that he would eventually reach Rome as he had long desired (19:21). It is amazing how the vision of God can keep us through the storm. Later on the high seas, and in the midst of the storm, Paul never lost the certainty that he and his crew would be spared (27:21-25). He knew he would reach Rome.
THE VIOLENT PLOT AGAINST PAUL
The next morning some Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. More than forty men were involved in this plot. Acts 23:12-13
This was a sizeable plot involving more than forty people. These people were dead serious and had sworn not to eat or drink until Paul was murdered. The seriousness of the plotters is evident, because many of them would have surely died at the hands of the Roman guard protecting Paul.22 Their plot, of course, violated the letter and spirit of Jewish law but it certainly reflected the character of the high priest Ananias.23 They had somehow forgotten the words of Isaiah their prophet spoken many centuries before: “‘…no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,’ declares the LORD” (Isa. 54:17).
“They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, ‘We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul’” (23:14). How incredible it is that the high priest and elders became involved in this murderous plot. Coffman asks how there were many more than forty of these plotters: “… How many more? Well, to the forty, one must add the chief priests and the elders of the people, the entire dominant factor which controlled the temple itself. How evil this once glorious institution had become!” 24 We can begin to understand why in just a few years the Lord would destroy the temple and most of the people connected with it. Not one stone would be left on another (Matt. 24:2).
“Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here” (23:15). Just imagine! The great Sanhedrin would gladly give permission for Paul, a righteous person, to be waylaid in the narrow alleyways of old Jerusalem. In those days as we have mentioned, there were numerous people who were called sicarri (cf. 21:38-39). They carried short curved knives under their clothing for the purpose of secretly striking down others. Perhaps some of these plotters belonged to this group.
THE PLOT DISCOVERED
But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” Acts 23:16-17
Here, for the first time in Acts, we realize that Paul had some family living in Jerusalem. There has been much speculation among commentators as to how many family members were there. We know for sure that the apostle had a sister in Jerusalem and that she had a son. Although this is also speculation, it is very likely that this young man was in Jerusalem to study the Torah just as Paul once did.25 Although, many Jewish converts lost their families in the process of accepting the Lord, it appears that Paul and his sister’s family had remained on a friendly basis. Perhaps they too were believers in the Lord. We simply do not know. Wiersbe speculates that Paul’s sister still had some connections with the Pharisees (23:6) and that she may have gained the news of the plot from some of the women in the group.26 Again, this is but speculation.
It appears from the story that the son involved here was quite young. This seems evident as the commander took him by the hand (v. 19).27 He was old enough to understand an evil plot and to keep it a secret. Some have probably wondered how the child could get access to the prison area of the fortress. Marshall remarks on this saying: “But other references to prison conditions at the time suggest that prisoners were easily accessible to their friends who would bring them food and other small comfort…” 28
“Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, ‘Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.’ So he took him to the commander. The centurion said, ‘Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you’” (23:17-18). It is certainly interesting that in the rough and cruel Roman army such a place is made for a child. We no doubt remember that in the ancient world a child had no status. It seems to be a pure act of God that this young child could gain access to the tribune in charge of the whole Fortress of Antonia.
“The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, ‘What is it you want to tell me?’ He said: ‘Some Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him’” (23:19-20). In this account our readers have no doubt observed that the commander, Claudius Lysias comes off as a very caring and considerate person. In fact, he has several admirable qualities. His action with the young lad demonstrates that he was a sympathetic man.29
“Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request” (23:21). While the lad seemed to be quite young, he also seemed to be fairly intelligent. He appeared to have no trouble comprehending the seriousness of the plot against Paul and was insistent that the commander realize the grave danger involved. Such an attack would certainly have involved the killing of members of the Roman force.30 There could even have been a danger to the commander himself.
“The commander dismissed the young man with this warning: ‘Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me’” (23:22). The tribune in warning the lad was protecting himself from eavesdropping.31 There is little doubt that within hours the lad’s story would have been verified by a request from the Sanhedrin to bring Paul to the planned meeting.
PAUL TRANSFERRED TO CAESAREA
Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.” Acts 23:23-24
Stott comments on these verses saying: “The detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen certainly sounds like an extraordinary over-provision…[it] has made scholars wonder whether ‘spearmen’ is the correct translation of the Greek dexiolaboi, which occurs nowhere else in biblical or contemporary Greek literature.” 32 There have been several explanations of this Greek word. Barker and Kohlenberger feel that it was a reference to pack animals sent along.33 In any event, a very large force of perhaps 470 was sent with Paul. The tribune was taking no chances of a night ambush along the way.
The commander clearly realized that Paul was not safe in Jerusalem. He could not risk the chance that Paul, who was a Roman citizen under his care, could be murdered.34 Such a report would not gain favor with his commanders. It should be noted that this force would have taken about half of the men in the Antonia Fortress.35
We are told that the force was to leave at 9:00 PM. In the original text this was known as the third hour of the night. This was to be a forced march and therefore a mount would be provided for the apostle.
Paul was to be delivered to Felix. He is known in history as Antonius Felix, who was procurator of Judea during the years of AD 52 – 59. History does not treat this man well. The Roman historian Tacitus called him a vulgar ruffian.36 He seemed to have lived up to such a description. Tacitus also said of him that “…he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” 37 Actually, he had been a slave, but by the influence of his brother, who was a friend of Emperor Claudius, he became a freedman and was later was appointed procurator. He was married three times, each time to a princess. At this time his wife was Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I.38
THE LETTER TO FELIX
He wrote a letter as follows: Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings. Acts 23:25-26
To His Excellency or “Most Excellent” was a usual form of addressing a person in such authority. Luke actually addressed Theophilus, the recipient of his gospel, in such a manner (Lk. 1:3).39 Marshall says of this, “It is the only secular letter in the New Testament…The letter conforms to the accepted style of composition of such
documents…” 40
We have already had considerable experience with Claudius but this is the first time we have heard his name. Claudius Lysias had purchased his Roman citizenship. Lysias was no doubt his original Greek name, but when he became a citizen it became his cognomen. With his citizenship he took on the nomen of Claudius, honoring the Roman emperor.41
We might wonder how Luke was privy to the contents of this letter. It is likely that this information came from Paul.42 Obviously, Luke and Paul spent much time together on the voyage to Rome, and perhaps even at the prison in Caesarea .
“This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment” (23:27-29). Claudius Lysias seemed to be an exemplary person. However, commentators have noted that in his letter he presents himself in a most favorable light. He speaks of knowing of Paul’s Roman citizenship prior to his rescue. He also is discreetly silent about binding Paul, and he certainly does not mention his attempt to flog him. His letter, while being honorable, was “decidedly self-centered.” 43
“When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him” (23:30). Claudius Lysias seems to have been an efficient commander, taking care to deal with all the details of Paul’s case. The expression ,“I sent him,” is what is called an epistolary aorist in the Greek language. While it appears to be past tense, it really has the meaning of “I am sending.” 44
THE JOURNEY TO CAESAREA
So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. Acts 23:31
When we notice the details of how the Roman army operated, it is easy to see how they conquered the world and held control of it for centuries. When orders were given they were speedily carried out, and with great efficiency. On this particular night they made a forced march all the way to Antipatris. Commentators have stated this distance anywhere from 35 miles (56 km.) to 45 miles (72 km.). Today by current Israeli mileage charts the distance is shown to be 41 miles (66 km.). This was a very long march but fortunately a good part of it was steeply downhill.
The town of Antipatris was built by Herod the Great to honor his father, Antipater. The new city was located at the source of the Yarkon River and near ancient Afek. The location was at the foot of the mountains and in a primarily Gentile area so it was considered as a safe location.45 Another 25-30 miles (40-48 km.) would be required to reach Caesarea. We have to be amazed at the magnitude of this operation. Marshall says, “…It depicts the lengths to which the Romans were prepared to go in ensuring justice and safety for
Paul…” 46
“The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks” (23:32). The remainder of the journey was on horseback and was probably concluded rather swiftly. Our minds go back to the forty plotters in Jerusalem. They woke up to find that the Romans had cleverly outwitted them and they were left to try and wiggle out of their vows.
Keener remarks: “If Paul’s enemies eventually broke their oaths to kill him, Jewish law would simply require them to bring atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve.” 47
“When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him” (23:33). We can imagine the surprise the Christians may have had as the Roman cavalry rode into Caesarea escorting Paul. Meyer says: “…Philip and the other Christians must have been startled to see how soon their forebodings were fulfilled as the great missionary, from whom they had parted with so many tears, rode through the streets surrounded by soldiers.” 48
Upon their arrival Paul was promptly handed over to the governor Felix, along with the letter from Claudius Lysias. “The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, he said, ‘I will hear your case when your accusers get here.’ Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace” (23:34-35). Keener remarks: “It was good protocol to check the jurisdiction to which a person belonged before deciding a case…But during Paul’s period (not however, Luke’s period), Cilicia [Paul’s home territory] was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction…” 49
Paul was to be held in the palace of Herod the Great, which had now become Roman headquarters. Guzik says of this time: “…This began a two-year period of confinement for Paul in Caesarea. After that he spent at least two years in Rome. Taken together with travel time, the next five years of Paul’s life were lived in Roman custody. This was a striking contrast to his previous years of wide and spontaneous travel.” 50