Acts Lesson Forty-nine

Acts Lesson Forty-nine: Acts 22:30-23:10 – Paul Before the Sanhedrin

The next day, since he wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and instructed the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to convene. Then he brought Paul down and placed him before them. 23¹ Paul looked intently at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience until this day.” ² But the high priest Ananias ordered those who were standing next to him to strike him on the mouth. ³ Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You are sitting there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law are you ordering me to be struck?” 

⁴ And those standing nearby said, “Do you dare revile God’s high priest?” 

⁵ “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,” replied Paul. “For it is written, You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” ⁶ When Paul realized that one part of them were Sadducees and the other part were Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees! I am being judged because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” ⁷ When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. ⁸ For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and no angel or spirit, but the Pharisees affirm them all. 

⁹ The shouting grew loud, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party got up and argued vehemently: “We find nothing evil in this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” ¹⁰ When the dispute became violent, the commander feared that Paul might be torn apart by them and ordered the troops to go down, rescue him from them, and bring him into the barracks. (HCSB)

I’ll present this lesson in only one part. 

As we remember back to the last lesson, as the Roman soldiers were preparing to scourge Paul, they discovered that he was a Roman citizen. This certainly changed the dynamics of the situation and caused the Roman soldiers to worry about the consequences of arresting a Roman citizen without a formal charge being brought against him. 

• The Roman commander had two serious problems to solve.
  • It was Paul’s right as a Roman citizen to know what the charges against him were.
  • He needed to have an official charge for his records and to pass along to his superiors.
• Claudius was certain that Paul had done something quite serious to cause the Jews in the temple to react with such vehemence.
• However, nobody could pinpoint Paul’s crime. The uncertainty surrounding Paul created a tense situation for Claudius.
• Claudius came to the conclusion the best solution was to allow the Jews to try him.
• Claudius arranged a special meeting of the Sanhedrin.
  • Roman officials were charged with keeping the peace, and the situation with Paul needed to be resolved to maintain the peace in Jerusalem.
  • There are differing opinions on whether or not the Roman officials had the authority to convene a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin.
  • Some believe this was an informal meeting.
  • Some believe it was held in the Tower of Antonia instead of the council chamber of the Sanhedrin.
  • There were several groups that comprised the Sanhedrin.
    • The high priest.
    • Seventy of the leading Jewish teachers.
      • Sadducees.
      • Pharisees.
      • Scribes.
    • They were responsible for interpreting and applying the sacred Jewish Law to the nation.
    • They were responsible for trying those who violated the Law.
    • The Roman authorities gave the Sanhedrin permission to impose capital punishment if the offense deserved it.
  • The phrase “he released him” only meant Paul was allowed to appear before the council. It didn’t mean that Paul was released from protective custody.

Now that we’ve looked at the details of the setting let’s take a closer look at the meeting itself.

• The Sanhedrin already had quite a bit of experience dealing with “Christian situations.”
  • They had tried Christ.
  • They had tried Peter and John – Acts 4:5ff.
  • They had tried the twelve apostles – Acts 5:21ff.
  • They had tried and executed Stephen – Acts 6:12ff.
  • Now, Paul appeared before the council.
• Paul begins his address before the Sanhedrin in a bi-polar manner, mixing both respect and confrontation.
  • By beginning with the term “brothers,” Paul is identifying himself as a fellow Jew.
  • However, when he continues with, “I have lived my life before God in all good conscience,” Paul is implying that he has been completely faithful to God in every manner.
    • Conscience is one of Paul’s favorite words; he used it twice in Acts and twenty-one times in his epistles. 
      • It is the inner judge that approves our actions when we’re right and disapproves when we are wrong. 
      • It doesn’t make the it standard, but it applies it to a situation.
    • If Paul’s life as a Christian made him innocent before God, then the Sanhedrin members who were not followers of Christ were the ones who were guilty.
• Because Paul implied that the members of the Sanhedrin were the guilty ones, Ananias’ response to order those next to Paul to hit Paul in the mouth is not surprising.
  • The high priest’s action was completely in line with his character.
  • Josephus has described him as one of the very worst of the high priests.
    • He became high priest in a.d. 48.
    • He was pro-Roman.
    • He was extremely cruel.
    • He was very greedy.
    • He was well known for accepting bribes.
    • He would often take money from the temple offerings.
    • He was assassinated by Jewish guerrillas in a.d. 66.
  • His order to strike Paul was illegal since a person appearing before the Sanhedrin was considered innocent until proven guilty.
• Paul’s response could be viewed in two different ways.
  • Some might expect Paul to react like Jesus; “When He was reviled, He did not revile in return; when He was suffering, He did not threaten but entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23)
  • Some might view Paul’s angry response as completely understandable.
• The content of Paul’s response, “you whitewashed wall,” is strong and confrontational.
  • The image of a whitewashed wall, sheer hypocrisy, is entirely appropriate given the situation.
    • The high priest would have been dressed in his high-priestly garments, symbolic of his role as an intercessor between the people and God.
    • However, his character and actions were in stark contrast to his outward appearance.
    • Jesus used the same imagery of whitewashed tombs to depict hypocrisy; the outside appeared clean but dead bones were inside the tomb.
  • We can interpret Paul’s outburst in one of four ways.
    • Paul was justified because of Ananias’ character and behavior.
    • Paul was justified in expressing righteous anger.
    • Paul spoke calmly and delivered a prophecy of God’s judgment on Ananias.
    • Paul lost his cool. Pushed beyond the breaking point by the previous day’s circumstances, he said something he should not have said.
  • Each one is possible, with scholars and commentators divided on which one is correct.
  • In a way, Paul’s words were prophetic as Ananias was killed by Jewish freedom fighters ten years later.
• At this point, those standing around them accuse Paul of disrespect towards the high priest.
• Paul’s response to the charge, quoting Exodus 22:28, has also been interpreted in various ways.
  • Paul’s “thorn in the side” may be poor eyesight, resulting in him not being able to see that Ananias was the high priest.
  • It had been years since Paul was last in Jerusalem, and he may not have recognized who Ananias was. This would also imply that Ananias was not dressed in his high-priestly garments.
  • Paul may have been using “holy sarcasm.” If that is true, Paul is asking if such a descpicable person could be the high priest.
• Regardless of which one is correct, Paul is doing two things with his response.
  • Paul is showing respect for the office of the high priest.
  • Paul is not showing respect for the person serving in that office.
  • There is a subtle but significant difference.
• Paul then realizes the group gathered to judge him was made up of both Sadducees and Pharisees. Paul uses this to his advantage.
• There are two likely reasons for Paul to take employ this tactic.
  • After the incident with the high priest, Paul realized he would never receive a fair trial before Sanhedrin. 
    • If the Asian Jews were allowed to speak, they would have made condemning remarks regarding Paul’s behavior in Gentile territory.
    • If the trial continued, Paul faced the prospect of being convicted and stoned as a blasphemer.
    • Paul’s best chance was to end the trial as soon as possible.
  • Paul may have been playing “religious politics” with the two main sects comprising the Sanhedrin, the doctrinal issue of resurrection.
    • Jesus’ resurrection was the issue that separated Paul from the rest of the Jews.
    • Both Paul’s affiliation with the Pharisees and his belief in the resurrection is critically relevant to the situation.
• Regardless of the reason behind Paul’s use of the doctrinal issue of the resurrection, the result is that a heated dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees.
  • Sadducees.
    • They comprised the majority in the Sanhedrin.
    • The high priest was a Sadducee.
    • The ruling elders were primarily Sadducees.
    • They only accepted the five books of the Law.
      • There is no evidence of resurrection in the Law.
      • However, there are references to angels and spirits.
    • They didn’t believe in the resurrection.
    • But what did Luke mean when he said the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels or spirits since they are found in the Law?
      • Luke may mean that the Sadducees rejected the eschatology of the Pharisees, which contained a complicated hierarchy of good and evil angels.
      • They may have rejected the idea that an angel or spirit could speak through a human as an agent of revelation.
      • It could be a form of rejecting the resurrection; they rejected an afterlife that involved an angelic or spiritual state.
  • Pharisees.
    • They comprised the minority in the Sanhedrin.
    • They are represented primarily by the scribes.
    • They believed in the resurrection.
    • They believed in angels and spirits.
  • Some Pharisees had become Christians (Acts 15:5), but the New Testament contains no evidence of a Sadducee becoming a Christian.
• The result is that the Pharisees now became Paul’s defenders against the Sadducees.
  • They agreed with Paul on the general doctrinal idea of a resurrection.
  • They also agreed that it was possible that God may have spoken to Paul through an angel or spirit; they might have had Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus in mind.
• At this point, the dispute between the two parties spins out of control, and Claudius, fearing that mob mentality may once again place Paul’s life in danger calls for the Roman troops to take Paul back into the barracks.
• While Paul’s initial seizure by the Roman troops after the temple mob incident could be interpreted as an arrest, there is little doubt now that Claudius is acting in a spirit of protective custody.

Applications

• If we live our lives in accordance with God’s will and are obedient to His Word, we can speak with boldness regardless of the situation. Paul did just that before the Sanhedrin. Although all of us will sin during our lives, we need to be obedient to His Word by surrendering our lives to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
• We must always show respect to leadership positions. We may not agree with or like the person occupying it, but Scripture is clear we are to respect and pray for our leaders. We never know how God will use a person according to His purpose. If Christians spent less time gossiping and complaining and more time praying, we would be better witnesses to the love of Christ and more effective in shaping our world.
• Use circumstances to benefit your witness as long as it doesn’t compromise it. Paul did that when he brought up the issue of the resurrection, knowing there would be disagreement between the Sadducees and Pharisees. He didn’t twist or compromise the truth.