21  Paul Before  the Sanhedrin  (Acts 22:30–23:11)

But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set him before them. And Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. And there arose a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” And as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks. But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.” (22:30–23:11)

A tragic theme running through the thrilling story of the growing church in Acts is the sad reality of Jewish opposition to the church and the gospel. Along with the apostolic preaching of the cross, Luke chronicles the rising tide of Jewish antagonism. Having rejected and executed the long-awaited and hoped-for Messiah, Israel as a nation subsequently rejected those who preached the message of forgiveness and salvation in His name.

The opposition began when the church began—on the Day of Pentecost, after the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit and miraculously spoke in other languages. Some in the crowd mocked and ridiculed them, scornfully deriding them as if the apostles were drunk (2:13).

That relatively mild opposition stiffened after Peter’s sermon following the healing of a lame man (3:12–26). The Jewish authorities were annoyed “because [the apostles] were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (4:2). Determined to put an end to this dangerous new teaching, “they laid hands on them, and put them in jail” (4:3). The next day, the Sanhedrin “commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (4:18). But refusing to be intimidated, “Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard’” (4:19–20).

The opposition from the Jewish leaders continued, as recorded in chapter 5, when the Sanhedrin again arrested and imprisoned the apostles (5:17–18). That frantic attempt to stifle the preaching of the gospel failed when God sent an angel to miraculously release them from prison (5:19–20). They then boldly resumed preaching in the stronghold of the authorities—the temple (5:21). Further threats by the Sanhedrin (5:28), and even a beating (5:40), did not deter the apostles from teaching and preaching the gospel (5:42).

The next outbreak of persecution involved Stephen. That fearless and powerful preacher crushed his Jewish opponents in debate (6:9–10), so frustrating them that they finally arranged for false witnesses to lie about him (6:11). He, too, was then brought before the Sanhedrin (6:12–15), where he gave a masterful sermon defending both himself and the Christian gospel (7:1–50). He closed that message with a stinging indictment of the Jewish leaders for their hardhearted rejection of the truth (7:51–53). Furious, they drove him out of the city and stoned him to death (7:54–60).

The murder of Stephen was the catalyst for the first widespread persecution of the church (8:1). That persecution, lead by the zealous Pharisee Saul of Tarsus (8:3), scattered the Jerusalem church (8:1) and spread the gospel further (8:4).

Further persecution, this time directed against the church’s leaders, came from Herod. Seeking to please the Jewish authorities, he executed James and arrested Peter (12:1–3). Peter was miraculously released from prison (12:7–11) but was forced into seclusion (12:17).

After Paul’s encounter with the glorified Christ on the Damascus road, he became Christianity’s leading evangelist. Ironically, Paul, once the chief persecutor of Christians, now became the most persecuted of Christians. Jewish opposition first arose against him in Damascus shortly after his conversion (9:23). He met further opposition from unbelieving Jews throughout his missionary journeys. On the island of Cyprus, he confronted a Jewish false prophet (13:6–8). The unbelieving Jews at Pisidian Antioch, filled with jealousy, opposed Paul’s teaching (13:45). At Iconium (14:2), Lystra (14:19), Thessalonica (17:5ff.), Berea (17:13), Corinth (18:6, 12–13), Ephesus (19:9), Corinth again as he began his trip to Jerusalem (20:3), and after his arrival in Jerusalem (21:27ff.), Paul faced the hostility of his countrymen.

As chapter 23 opens, Paul again faces Jewish opposition. As seen in the previous section, he had been attacked in the temple grounds by a Jewish mob and savagely beaten. Only the intervention of Roman soldiers saved his life. Claudius Lysias, the commander of the Roman forces in Jerusalem, tried unsuccessfully to find out what Paul had done. He allowed him to address the angry crowd from the steps of Fort Antonia. But Paul’s mention of his commission to the Gentiles (22:21) caused the riot to break out afresh. Lysias then decided to use a brutal Roman interrogation method (scourging with a flagellum) to extract a confession from him. The discovery that Paul was a Roman citizen halted that proceeding, since it was illegal to so examine a Roman citizen.

By now thoroughly frustrated and perplexed about how to proceed, Lysias decided to summon the Sanhedrin. Accordingly, on the next day, wishing to know for certain why Paul had been accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought him down and set him before them. Whether Lysias at this time released Paul from imprisonment or from his chains is not clear. Given his alarm at having put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains (22:29), probably the former is meant.

Some have questioned whether Lysias had the authority to have ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble. But this was not a formal convening of the Sanhedrin. Lysias, still wishing to know for certain why Paul had been accused by the Jews, naturally turned to the highest Jewish court for clarification. He would not have turned a Roman citizen over to the Sanhedrin for trial before determining and evaluating the charges against him. Nor does this hearing have the hallmarks of a formal trial. There were no charges made against Paul, nor did any witnesses testify against him. Further, it does not seem that this meeting took place in the Sanhedrin’s normal meeting place on the temple grounds. Lysias brought Paul down and set him before the Sanhedrin somewhere outside of Fort Antonia. Roman troops were readily available to rescue Paul (23:10) if things got out of hand again.

Paul’s appearance before the Sanhedrin marks the fifth (and last) time that body was called upon to evaluate the claims of Christ. The first was when Jesus Himself stood before it (Mark 14:53–65); the second involved Peter and John (Acts 4:5–22); the third followed their arrest of all the apostles (5:21ff.); and the fourth was the trial of Stephen (Acts 6:12ff.). Five times the peerless communicators of the gospel had proclaimed the truth to the Sanhedrin, and five times its members rejected it. Not only did they condemn themselves (John 3:18), but their rejection also symbolized the nation’s rejection of Messiah.

The Sanhedrin (from the Greek word sunedrion, “council”) was the religious ruling body of the Jews in Roman-occupied Israel. The Sanhedrin’s authority was final in matters involving Jewish law, while its authority in civil matters was limited. Roman governors (such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus) and Roman-appointed rulers (such as the Herods) wielded the political clout in Israel.

Although Jewish tradition traces the Sanhedrin’s origins to the seventy elders who assisted Moses (Num. 11:16), it actually dates from postexilic times. After the Jewish revolt against Rome (A.D. 66–70), the Sanhedrin lost its remaining vestiges of political power. Driven from Jerusalem, it reconvened at Jamnia but was limited to considering religious questions.

Three main groups composed the Sanhedrin. The High Priests consisted of the president of the Sanhedrin, former presidents (such as Annas, Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6), various officials (such as the captain of the temple guard, Acts 5:24), and others “who were of high-priestly descent” (Acts 4:6). The Elders included members of the priestly aristocracy (such as Nicodemus, John 7:50) and wealthy individuals (such as Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:43). The Scribes, mostly drawn from the ranks of the Pharisees, were experts in Jewish law.

Two main religious factions dominated the Sanhedrin: the Sadducees and the Pharisees (cf. 23:6). The Sanhedrin had its own police force (cf. 5:24–26) and could mete out punishment for violations of Jewish law (cf. 5:40). They did not, however, have the right of capital punishment (John 18:31) unless the case involved the desecration of the temple.

Luke presents Paul’s appearance before the Sanhedrin in four scenes: the confrontation, the conflict, the conquest, and the consolation.

THE CONFRONTATION

And Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” (23:1)

Never one to be intimidated or back away from a confrontation, Paul stood for a moment looking intently at the Council before beginning to speak. Looking intently is from atenizō, which means “to gaze upon,” “to fix one’s eyes on,” or “to stare.” Some have seen this as further evidence of Paul’s poor eyesight; others suggest that he was looking to see whom he could recognize. But more important, Paul’s look was one of conscious integrity. He knew he was innocent of any wrongdoing, and he had complete confidence that God was with him. Because of that, he did not cower in fear or guilt.

Paul began by addressing them, surprisingly, as “brethren” (the Greek text reads “men, brethren”). The customary way of addressing the Sanhedrin was “Rulers and elders of the people” (Acts 4:8) or “Brethren and fathers” (Acts 7:2). But Paul, unlike Peter or Stephen, had close ties to the Sanhedrin. He undoubtedly knew many of them, having probably once been a member of the Sanhedrin himself (cf. Acts 26:10). Some may have been students of Gamaliel along with him. Certainly many were fellow Pharisees. He had surely worked with some of them to eradicate the Christian church. All this familiarity with the Sanhedrin prompted him to address them as equals.

Even more disconcerting to the Sanhedrin was Paul’s bold assertion “I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” As those who knew him could attest, he had always been motivated by a desire to please God (cf. 24:16; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:6). By making this claim, Paul put the members of the Sanhedrin on the defensive. Since he had acted in obedience to God, by opposing him they were actually fighting God.

That Paul had lived his life with a perfectly good conscience before God does not mean all his actions had always been right. It does mean that Paul felt no guilt for anything he had done, in spite of the Sanhedrin’s accusations. It should be noted that the conscience does not determine whether actions are morally right or wrong—Paul’s conscience had once permitted him to persecute Christians. Conscience is the faculty that passes moral judgment on a person’s actions (Rom. 2:14–15). But it does so based only on the highest standards of morality and conduct perceived by that individual. It is thus neither the voice of God nor infallible. A conscience uninformed by biblical truth will not necessarily pass accurate judgments (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4). Before his conversion, Paul’s had not.

It is possible for the conscience to be damaged, dysfunctional, even destroyed. The Bible speaks of a weak conscience (1 Cor.8:7, 10), a wounded conscience (1 Cor. 8:12), a defiled conscience (Titus 1:15), an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22), and, worst of all, a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:2)—one so covered with scar tissue from habitual sin that it no longer responds to the proddings of divine truth. Obviously, a conscience in one of those states will not always assess things properly.

On the other hand, the Bible commends a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:5, 19; Heb. 13:18; 1 Pet. 3:16, 21), a blameless conscience (Acts 24:16), and a clear conscience (1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3). Such a spiritually healthy conscience results from the forgiveness of sin based on the atoning work of Christ (Heb. 9:14; 10:22). Christians’ consciences, informed by the standards of God’s Word, are able to assess accurately their actions. Christians thus need to strengthen their consciences by constantly exposing them to the truths of Scripture. Paul had such a fully and rightly informed conscience, and it was not accusing him. (For a biblical study of the conscience, see John MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience [Dallas: Word, 1994].)

THE CONFLICT

And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” (23:2–5)

Outraged by Paul’s bold claim to a good conscience, the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Ananias, the son of Nedebaeus, is not to be confused with the former high priest Annas (Luke 3:2). Ananias reigned for eleven or twelve years, beginning in A.D. 47, and was one of the most cruel, evil, corrupt high priests ever to hold office. According to Josephus, he stole from the common priests the tithes that should have gone to them, beating any who resisted (Antiquities 20.9.2). He did not hesitate to use violence to further his goals; in fact, a few years earlier the Romans had suspected him of complicity in atrocities committed against the Samaritans. They sent him to Rome to appear before Emperor Claudius, but he was acquitted (Antiquities 20.6.2–3). He was hated by the Jewish nationalists because of his staunchly pro-Roman stand. When the Jewish revolt against Rome broke out in A.D. 66, Ananias was promptly killed by the Jewish rebels (Wars 2.17.9).

In keeping with his cruel, violent character, Ananias ordered those standing beside Paul to strike him on the mouth. The verb translated to strike (tuptō) depicts more than a mere slap to the face. It is the same word used in 21:32 to speak of the crowd’s beating of Paul and of the Roman soldiers’ beating of Jesus (Matt. 27:30).

Incensed at Ananias’s outrageous breach of Jewish law, Paul retorted, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!” He may have remembered Jesus’ castigation of the Pharisees as “whitewashed tombs” (Matt. 23:27). A more likely allusion, however, is to Ezekiel’s denunciation of false prophets as walls plastered over with whitewash, doomed to fall in the flood of divine judgment (Ezek. 13:10–16).

Since Paul had not even been formally charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, he could not legally be beaten. He angrily rebuked Ananias, asking him, “do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” Paul was more indignant at the flouting of the law than at the pain inflicted by the blow itself.

Some have wondered how to harmonize Paul’s strong language with his declaration to the Corinthians that “when we are reviled, we bless” (1 Cor. 4:12). They point out, in contrast, the example of Jesus, who “while being reviled, did not revile in return; while suffering, uttered no threats” (1 Pet. 2:23). When Jesus was struck in violation of the law, He merely asked, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:23).

The answer is, of course, that Paul was not Jesus. Jesus was the sinless Son of God. Paul, while no doubt the godliest man who ever lived, was still a sinner. He vividly described his battle with indwelling sin in Romans 7:14ff.; this was one time when the flesh prevailed.

Shocked by Paul’s stinging rebuke of the high priest, the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Revile translates loidoreō, which means “to reproach,” “to insult,” or “to abuse.” It is used in John 9:28 when the Jewish leaders insulted and mocked the blind man whom Jesus had healed. Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 4:12 to describe the opposite of blessing. Peter used it to describe the abuse heaped on Jesus (1 Pet. 2:23). The noun form appears twice in the New Testament, both times in lists of vices that characterize unbelievers (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10). The adjectival form also appears twice in the New Testament. First Timothy 5:14 describes reviling as an activity of Satan, while 1 Peter 3:9 forbids Christians to do it.

The use of loidoreō shows that the people felt Paul’s strong language was not some calculated legal ploy to take advantage of Ananias’s violation of the law but an expression of anger. It was something, as he himself acknowledges in verse 5, that violated God’s law. Although an evil man and a disgrace to his office, the high priest still occupied a God-ordained position of authority. He was not to be reviled but respected (cf. Deut. 17:8–12). “The high-priest stands before God. To abuse him, especially in the discharge of his office, is blasphemy” (H. Hanse, “loidoreō” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 4:293–94).

Being the humble man that he was, Paul immediately acknowledged his error, exclaiming, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” He offered only the excuse of ignorance for his outburst, although it had been provoked by the high priest’s illegally ordering him to be struck. He quickly admitted that he had violated God’s express prohibition against slandering a ruler (Ex. 22:28). He even quoted the passage, to show his respect for and submission to the Word of God. Paul’s reaction was that of a mature Christian. He saw his sin in relation to how holy God was, not how bad the high priest was. And when he realized his sin, he immediately confessed it and submitted to the authority of Scripture. Christians who thus deal with sin in their lives will save themselves much chastisement (cf. 1 Cor. 11:31).

Skeptics have found it incredible that Paul would not recognize the high priest. Various explanations of his words “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest” have been offered. Some see in them another manifestation of Paul’s poor eyesight, arguing that he could not discern who spoke. Others hold that Paul was so angry that he did not stop to consider to whom he was speaking. Still others believe Paul spoke ironically; since Ananias had not acted like the high priest, how should Paul have recognized him? But the simplest, most straightforward explanation is to take Paul’s words at face value. Since he had seldom visited Jerusalem in recent years, he likely did not know Ananias by sight. That this was not a formal convening of the Sanhedrin, but an informal gathering somewhere outside Fort Antonia, offers further support for this view. Paul would have recognized the high priest had he been wearing his high priestly garments and sitting in his official seat.

Whatever the explanation for his failure to recognize the high priest, Paul did not offer it as an excuse. By admitting his error, Paul accepted responsibility for his words. Such a humble, nondefensive attitude is the mark of a spiritual believer.

THE CONQUEST

But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. And there arose a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” And as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks. (23:6–10)

Paul’s confrontation with the high priest convinced him that he would not receive a fair hearing from the Sanhedrin. Accordingly, perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” As previously noted, two main religious factions dominated the Sanhedrin: the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Those two factions were socially, politically, and theologically at odds with each other.

Being himself a son of Pharisees, Paul appealed to them for support. He cried out, “I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central truth of Christianity. Paul asserted that the issue was his belief and proclamation of that truth (cf. 24:21). Belief in resurrection was commonly held by the Christians and Pharisees against the Sadducees.

Paul’s appeal fanned into flame the smoldering theological tensions between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Luke notes that as he said this there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the benefit of his readers who were unaware of the distinctions between the two groups, Luke briefly summarizes them. The Sadducees, he explains, say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. The Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative. They rejected any concept of an afterlife (cf. Matt. 22:23–33), claiming that it was not found there. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed in resurrection and the afterlife. Their beliefs were thus more compatible with Christianity than those of the Sadducees. F. F. Bruce notes that “a Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning the distinctive theological position of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee—in the early decades of Christianity, at least” (The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 453). The Scriptures record Pharisees who became Christians, including Nicodemus (John 3:1) and others (Acts 15:5), but no Sadducees.

Paul’s appeal threw the meeting into confusion. Rising to the defense of a fellow Pharisee, some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” So bitter was the theological dispute between the two parties that the Pharisees were willing to defend Paul against the Sadducees.

Lysias must have watched in growing frustration as the discord grew. Even after bringing Paul before the highest Jewish court, he was no nearer to discovering what crime the apostle had committed. Finally, as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks. Once again the Romans had to rescue Paul from his own people, who hated him as they had hated Christ.

THE CONSOLATION

But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.”(23:11)

For his own safety, the Romans kept Paul confined in the barracks of Fort Antonia. Alone in his cell, the apostle was physically battered, discouraged, and uncertain of his future. But on the night immediately following his abortive hearing before the Sanhedrin, the Lord stood at his side. As He had before in times of need (cf. 18:9; 22:17–21), the Lord appeared in person to His servant.

He began by consoling Paul, exhorting him to take courage. God graciously comforts His downcast servants, so much so that Scripture calls Him “the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). To the Corinthians Paul wrote:

Later in Second Corinthians, Paul could write that he was filled with comfort (7:4), because God comforts the depressed (7:6).

The Lord also commended Paul, reminding him you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem. Paul had successfully completed the task the Lord had given him in that city.

Finally, the Lord gave Paul hope. He promised him that his life would not end in Jerusalem, but that he would be granted his desire (Rom. 1:9–11; 15:23) to witness at Rome also. That gracious promise sustained Paul during the many trials he would endure before he got there.