truthproject777

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. 
truthproject777

Acts Lesson Thirty

Acts Lesson Thirty: Acts 15:1-21 – The Jerusalem Council

Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved!” 2 But after Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, the church arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this controversy. 3 When they had been sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, explaining in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and they created great joy among all the brothers. 

4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses!” 

6 Then the apostles and the elders assembled to consider this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: “Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving  the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them,  cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why are you testing God by putting a yoke on the disciples’ necks that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are.” 

12 Then the whole assembly fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul describing all the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they stopped speaking, James responded: “Brothers, listen to me! 14 Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: 

16 After these things I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. 

I will rebuild its ruins and set it up again, 

17 so the rest of humanity may seek the Lord— even all the Gentiles 

who are called by My name, declares the Lord who does these things, 

18 known from long ago. 

19 Therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those among the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For since ancient times, Moses has had those who proclaim him in every city, and every Sabbath day he is read aloud in the synagogues.” (HCSB)

When we look back at the end of the previous lesson, we’ll remember that about a year had passed between the time that Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and the beginning of Acts 15. I’ll be dividing this lesson into two parts.

  • The Dispute in Antioch – verses 1-3.
  • The Jerusalem Council – verses 4-21.

In previous lessons, I’ve addressed an issue about the enemy always being active against successful ministry endeavors. Here, we see this issue playing out once again. Paul and Barnabas returned from a successful missionary trip and were now engaged in teaching and helping the church at Antioch grow spiritually. Now, the enemy sets out to disrupt their work and discredit them. The greatest weapon of the enemy is lies. We saw that at the beginning of Genesis where Satan used lies to cause Adam and Eve to eat the fruit that was forbidden. We see lies being used in this passage. When we look at the world today, lies are still a favorite weapon of the enemy. The lie of relevant truth; what is true to me is true. The lie is that we should do whatever feels right or good to us. The lie is that having more will make us happy. I could go on and on.

The Dispute in Antioch

Although only three verses long, let’s look at some facts from this passage.

  • The men who came down from Jerusalem were of the camp of the Judaizers, which meant that they were previously Pharisees who became Christians.
    • They believed that circumcision was a requirement for salvation.
    • Christians still needed to follow the Mosaic Law.
  • It is not difficult to understand why these Jewish believers were confused.
    • The Old Testament taught that Gentiles could only be saved through Israel.
    • The only Gentiles that the Jerusalem church had seen saved were those evangelized by Peter, and that was a special act of God in Acts 11:18.
    • News traveled slowly, and they weren’t aware of all that God had accomplished through Paul and Barnabas.
    • It is also possible that once they became aware of the large number of Gentiles who were converted, they were either jealous or fearful of transition from Mosaic Law tradition to the New Covenant.
  • Paul and Barnabas engaged the Judaizers in debate, with the result being that they would go to the church in Jerusalem to have the leadership there judge the matter.
    • This didn’t indicate any hierarchy; instead it was a voluntary decision to go there.
    • God commanded Paul to go to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-2.
    • Jerusalem was still the “mother church” of Christianity.
    • The Apostles were at Jerusalem.
  • The journey between Antioch and Jerusalem was over 250 miles, likely taking a month or so to complete.
    • They evangelized along the way.
    • It is likely that most of the congregations and believers they met along the way would be on the side of Paul and Barnabas, not wanting to burden Gentile believers with circumcision and the Mosaic Law.
    • The congregations along the way rejoiced at the news of the success among the Gentiles.

The Jerusalem Council

Once the group arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the elders and Apostles. There are a few points to note regarding the first verse in this section, implied here but clarified as the passage continues.

  • Paul represented the position against circumcision and the Mosaic Law being a requirement for Gentile believers.
  • Peter represented the Apostles.
  • Jame represented the elders.
  • The Judaizers represented those who believed any Christian should be circumcised and subject to the Mosaic Law.

From the context of this section, it also appears that at least four separate meetings took place during this time.

  • A public meeting during which the Jerusalem church welcomed Paul and those traveling with him.
  • A private meeting between Paul and the key leaders is referenced in Galatians 2:2.
  • A second public meeting where the Judaizers presented their case is found in Acts 15:5 and Galatians 2:3-5.
  • The formal council meeting where the final decision was made is referenced in Acts 15:6ff. We can read Paul’s report on the issue in Galatians 1-2.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at the last two meetings mentioned above.

Let’s consider some facts from the second public meeting.

  • From the context of the passage, it appears that this meeting went on for a considerable period of time.
  • Sensing that not much progress was being made, Peter decides to intervene and stands to present his position on the debate. 
    • Peter endorses Paul on two occasions in Scripture.
      • Peter’s final act in Acts was to endorse Paul and his ministry.
      • Peter’s last written words, found in 2 Peter 3:15-16, also endorsed Paul and his ministry.
    • Peter reminds them that God allowed him to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles – Acts 10-11.
    • God had accepted the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit was given to the Jews at Pentecost.
    • They were saved by faith and grace.
    • Verse 11 is key.
      • “We believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are.”
      • The Law was no longer applicable to the Jews. Therefore, it was also no longer applicable to the Gentiles.
      • Salvation is “by grace, through faith” and not “obey Moses and be circumcised.”
  • Paul and his companions were the next to speak.
    • The church greatly respected Paul and Barnabas, and their words carried a great deal of weight.
    • They described God’s work among the Gentiles.
    • They emphasized the miracles that were done among the Gentiles. The miracles were proof that God was involved in the work among the Gentiles.
      • Mark 16:20 – And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs.
      • Romans 15:18-19 – For I would not dare say anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, 19 by the power of miraculous signs and wonders, and by the power of God’s Spirit. As a result, I have fully proclaimed the good news about the Messiah from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum. 
    • Their astounding report of numerous successes of evangelizing the Gentile locations was evidence that couldn’t be refuted.
    • The opponents were effectively silenced.

The transition from the second public meeting to the formal council decision occurs between Paul’s address and James giving them the final decision.

  • James is the brother of Jesus and had become the leader of the church in Jerusalem in place of Peter.
  • He didn’t become a believer until after Jesus’ resurrection.
  • James had a strong leaning towards the Law. There are at least ten references to the Law in his epistle. This would have made him acceptable to the Judaizers in the Jerusalem church.
  • The key theme in James’ address is agreement.
    • He agreed with Peter that God was saving Gentiles by grace.
    • It must have startled the Judaizers when James said the Gentiles were “a people for His name.”
      • The Jews believed they were the people for God’s name, not Gentiles.
      • The New Testament church is a church for all people.
      • The Greek word for church, ekklesia, means a “called out assembly.”
      • If the Gentiles are called out, then their salvation is from grace and not through the keeping of the Law.
      • The Judaizers didn’t understand how the Jews and Gentiles related to each other in the church or how the church fit into God’s promise to establish a kingdom for Israel.
        • They were jealous for both the future glory of Israel as well as the past glory of Moses and the Law.
        • To them, accepting the Gentiles as spiritual equals jeopardized the future of Israel.
    • The prophets also agreed with this conclusion.
      • James cites Amos 9:11-12 to back up this point.
      • Amos’ prophecy agreed with the testimony of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas.
      • Amos also prophesied that the fallen tent of David would be raised up again. We know that is fulfilled through Jesus.
    • The future Israel is the restored Jews and Gentiles who have placed their faith in Jesus.
    • What they were witnessing was the beginning of the promises foretold in Amos. The promise included the Gentiles.

The decision.

James advised the church to write to the Gentile Christians and inform them of the decision of the conference. The decision addressed four items.

  • Two were commands.
    • Don’t be involved in idolatry.
    • Don’t engage in sexual immorality.
    • Neither presented any particular problem as they have always been wrong in God’s view.
  • Two were concessions.
    • Abstain from eating blood.
    • Abstain from eating meat from animals that have died by strangulation.
  • The two concessions revolved around the fact that the early church often met together and shared meals. Most of the churches met in homes, and some likely held pot luck dinners in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper. If the Gentiles ate food that was considered “unclean,” it would cause division within the church.
    • God gave the prohibition against blood before the Law in Genesis 9:4. Moses repeated it in Leviticus 17:11-14 and Deuteronomy 12:23.
    • The prohibition against eating an animal that has been strangled is because some of the blood will remain in the body and make it unfit for a Jew to eat. 
    • Kosher meat comes from a clean animal that has been properly killed and all the blood drained from the body.
  • What we see in the decision is a position of unity between two groups of people who are debating and defending their position.
    • The Judaizers gave up their insistence on circumcision.
    • The Gentiles accepted a change in their eating habits.
    • It was a compromise that didn’t affect the truth of the Gospel.
    • Not all compromise is good, but this was a situation where compromise brought two disagreeing sides to a middle ground.
  • The seemingly out-of-place reference to Moses is probably a reference to the requirements outlined in the law to avoid eating blood and should be no shock to the Gentile believers who would have heard the passages read in the synagogues. It is also possible that the Gentile believers should be sensitive to their Jewish counterparts and not offend them in this manner so that the lost Jews could also be reached with the Gospel.

Applications

  • If you encounter people teaching a false Gospel or a Gospel with “extra” requirements, make sure you challenge them, but do it in a Christian manner. If the false teachers are members of your church and they won’t stop the false teaching, you should bring it to the attention of your church leadership. If your church leaders are engaged in false teaching, they should be confronted. If they won’t stop, you should find a new church. Also, make sure that those who received the false teaching know what portions were false.
  • Don’t miss an opportunity to share the Gospel, even in your travels. In Acts 15, we see Paul and Barnabas taking advantage of their journey from Antioch to Jerusalem to share along the way. It would have been easier for them to travel quickly so that the matter under dispute could be solved. Instead, they turned their trip into an evangelism event.
  • Any theological debate should be done in an orderly manner and with sufficient witnesses. It helps to have all sides represented so that any decision will be acceptable to all parties. 
  • Unless your church leaders are false teachers, you should always respect their decision. God has placed them in that position for a reason, and you should honor God by honoring those He has chosen.