Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

A public gesture

 

The elders, fearing a serious upheaval at an assembly of the ecclesia, now desired him to lose no time in making clear once again not just by word but by overt personal act that he did not despise Moses. They asked for a public gesture which at a stroke would cancel out all the malevolent misrepresentation which had been poured into the minds of the brethren. For there were now thousands of disciples in the city and to a man they were all zealots for the Law. Living within sight of the temple how could they be otherwise? In any case, was not the Law of Moses the law of the land in Judaea? It was this Judaist characteristic of the Jerusalem ecclesia, and nothing else, which gave them toleration there as a sect of Jewry. James (so wrote Hegesippus) was himself a life-long Nazirite.

 

Four of the believers had each sworn a Nazirite vow, and the time was come for these vows to be terminated. So the elders asked: Would Paul take on himself the expense of covering the by no means inconsiderable cost of the sacrifices which the purification ceremonies for these four involved according to the Law (Num. 6:13-21)? To make a generous gesture of this sort was currently regarded as an outstanding act of piety, one which was bound to be attended with a fair degree of publicity because of open proclamation in the temple court and the spectacle of shaven men burning their hair at the altar. If Paul were publicly declared to be the sponsor of such holy actions, and if at the same time he personally began a seven-day vow, would not that give the lie to all the slanders so assiduously circulated?

 

A man of means?

 

Paul readily agreed. It may be taken as fairly certain that one of the reasons which had made him so adamant about coming to Jerusalem was an intention to expose the Judaist slanders concerning himself and the gospel he preached.

 

Although every indication in his letters, speeches, and way of life had hitherto proclaimed him a stranger to prosperity, it is evident that about the time of his journey to Jerusalem he suddenly be­came a man of wealth. Not only could he without hesitation pay for costly Nazirite sacrifices but he was undaunted by the big expense of an appeal to Caesar, he could defray the cost of a voyage to Rome for several friends (27:2), he could rent a house in the metropolis for two whole years (28:30), and he could command the respect of high Roman officials, a thing impossible for one near to poverty. Indeed Felix the governor, on the look-out for a substantial bribe, deemed Paul well able to buy his way to freedom (24:26).

[Resource Manager]

Implementing the plan

 

How this change of circumstances had come about is not known. Probably it was through reconciliation with his family (23:16).

 

The proposed plan was put into opera­tion next day. He appeared in the temple, being publicly proclaimed as sponsor of the four Nazirites. Also, at the end of the week, when the vows of the others were finally discharged, his own vow also would be publicly terminated (24:17) as an act of thanksgiving for an encouraging reception by the elders and for the safe transit of his party and the money they brought; he seems to have seen this Gentile benevolent fund as a kind of temple sacrifice (Rom. 15:16, 27, 31, leitourgeō), with himself as ministering priest.

 

It is not improbable that the four Nazirite vows terminated on different days; if so, this would mean Paul's public appear­ance in the temple court four, or even five, separate times in connection with the vow ceremonies. Thus there would be clear and repeated witness that he was no disparager of Moses.

 

In persuading Paul to adopt this politic suggestion, the elders little realised that, in an attempt to soothe the feelings of their own anti-Paul faction, they were putting a match to a much more explosive situation. But this is how the Ways of God's Providence operate.

 

 

Notes: 21:15-26

18. Went in. Other occurrences of this Greek verb all describe entry to the temple; v.26; 3:3; Heb. 9:6. Here was an occasion equally solemn.

All the elders. So none of the leaders were against Paul.

19. What God had wrought. This is the right emphasis: cp. Rom. 15:18,19; Luke 19:16. Because he was one of the participants in this solemn occasion. Luke does not mention the actual handing over of the money. This comes in incidentally at 24:17.

Declared particularly; s.w. Lk. 24:35

His ministry. Again a quiet emphasis on his apostleship; s.w. 1 ;17.

[20. Thou seest. Had there been a quick visit to the synagogues frequented by the disciples? How many thousands; s.w, Nu.. 10:36. Here is a New Israel.

21. Informed. This Greek word supplies the English "catechism." It means: to grind into the mind by repetition; s.w. Rom. 2:18: Gal. 6:6; Lk. 1:4; Acts 18:25. Who had been responsible for this deliberate campaign?

22. Multitude. From the context this seems to mean an excited concourse of the brethren.

24. Purify thyself. This is the LXX phrase for a Nazirite vow, but it probably covered other vows as well.

Thou thyself also, like the Jerusalem believers. This must be seen as one of the main purposes of Paul's visit.

[Resource Manager]

92. Temple Riot (21:27-40)

 

There is no definite information available from Talmud or Law of Moses about a seven-day period associated with a vow, but there must have been some practice of this kind, for Luke's record refers to "the seven days" (R.V.) of Paul's vow. During this time his several appearances in the temple associated with his Nazirites would be noted with satisfaction by the believers whose minds had been sown with doubts about him.

 

What was not realised was that the apos­tle's enemies also took note of what was happening. The full week of Mosaic ceremony gave them the opportunity to lay their plans for his discomfiture. The riot that blew up was too violent and sudden and efficient to be explained as a spon­taneous eruption of misguided and ill-informed religious indignation. Several details in the Greek text seem to suggest this.

 

Certain Jews from Asia - from Eph­esus, actually - had already seen Paul in the city in the company of Trophimus, one of the Greek brethren whom they knew by sight. This was their pathetically inadequ­ate cover for the lawlessness which they now let loose.

 

Holiness — and violence

 

The Nazirite vows were being dis­charged according to normal procedure in a chamber in the south-eastern corner of "The Court of the Women" when the storm broke. A few of these men grabbed Paul, shouting out: 'Men of Israel, help quick! Here's a man who is against Moses and our temple. He has defiled it by bringing his Gentile friends past the forbidden boundary!'

 

Very probably these unprincipled zealots, using exactly the methods em­ployed in modern Jerusalem by ultra-orthodox Jews, had already planted some of their hooligan colleagues not far away.

 

These, within seconds, rushed to join in the hullabaloo. The row quickly brought others from the near-by courts, and within a minute that part of the temple was a volcano of violence, with a helpless Paul at the centre of it. Strange that these fanatics gave no thought to the defilement of the temple created by the godless pandemonium and upsurge of hatred which they so enthusiastically stirred up.

 

Non-Jews were, of course, restricted to the outer Court of the Gentiles. There was a low "middle wall of partition" (Eph. 2:14) surmounted by a row of pillars, and notices in Greek and Latin, stating that "No alien is to pass within the fence and enclosure round the temple. Whosoever shall be taken shall be responsible to himself alone for the death which will ensue."

 

A stone with one of these inscriptions was found built into the wall of an old Muslim mosque in Jerusalem. And recent excavations adjoining the temple area have brought a replica of it to light.

 

Seized by wrists or ankles the helpless Paul was now dragged a considerable distance to the nearest temple gate so that outside it he could be battered to death without any religious compunction. The Levitical guard on duty promptly slammed the big gates, their only concern being that there ensue no further defile­ment of their temple.

[Resource Manager]

Roman intervention

 

Meantime someone - almost certainly one of the brethren - ran across to the opposite corner of the temple area to raise an alarm with the Roman guard on duty in the fortress of Antonia overlooking the sacred courts. The officers, well-practised in dealing with sudden outbursts of mob violence or terrorism, speedily had their men - more than two hundred of them -round to the south side of the temple to quell the turmoil.

 

As soon as they appeared, the mob ceased their Paul-bashing but not the din. That still intensified. The captain, realising that Paul was the cause of all the excitement, soon had him fastened by chains to each of two soldiers.

 

An immediate enquiry from those at the centre of the vortex as to who this man was and what he had done proved utterly futile, for the noise was almost deafening, and most of the shouting, being in Aramaic, was unintelligible.

 

So the captain was content to withdraw with his prisoner, congratulating himself that by a stroke of luck he had laid hands on an Egyptian Jew who not long before had been the centre of a great upheaval in Jerusalem. Josephus tells how this fellow, apparently pretending to be a kind of re-incarnation of Joshua, led a great multitude of his supporters - the Assas­sins, the Dagger-men - out into the wilderness and then back to the summit of the Mount of Olives, there to await the complete collapse of city and temple, after the pattern of Joshua and Jericho. In­stead, the governor Felix, fairly new in office, sent a considerable force of men against these rebels and with great bloodshed routed them. But their leader had got away.

 

Now the captain Claudius Lysias, hear­ing perhaps shouts of "He wants to bring down the wall of partition" or "He means to do away with the temple" - good enough half-truths! - assumed that the Egyptian was back again and that another faction had turned against him. Possibly also Paul had an unusually swarthy skin, and this too suggested the identification.

 

As the soldiers retreated to the foot of the stairs up to Antonia the crowd made a violent rush. So at an order from the officer Paul, scarcely conscious after all the welter of blows he had sustained, was unceremoniously hoisted above the sol­diers' heads and passed back out of harm's way, the mob all this while shriek­ing for his execution.

 

The captain's surprise

 

Then the apostle came to and, deliber­ately expressing himself in his most elegant Greek, he asked a favour of the captain. Probably he explained also that he was in no way responsible for the riot but that, given an opportunity, he could quieten the upheaval. The officer was greatly surprised:

 

'Can you talk Greek so well? Then you are not that Egyptian thug I took you for?'

 

'Indeed, no', answered Paul, 'I'm a Jew of Tarsus, a self-governing metropolis, one of the finest Greek cities in the empire. So, I beg of you, let me speak to them. You will see the effect immediately.'

 

Impressed, Claudius Lysias agreed, and Paul stepped forward to the head of the staircase. Bruised and tousled and with torn robes, he made an odd specta­cle. And a great roar of hatred came up to meet him. With a look he asked for his hands to be unshackled. Then, as he made a strong gesture for quiet, his powerful voice, well-used to open-air crowds, carried to the outermost limit of the throng:

 

"Men, brethren, and fathers" he shouted in Aramaic. The appeal in his words and the patois he fell into captured them immediately, and in a second or two there was, as modern journalese would put it, a deafening silence.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 21:27-40

27. Seven Days. This may have been a rabbinic inference for lesser vows, from Num. 6:9,10).

Saw him. This Greek word is not infrequently used for a deliberate or formal inspection.

28. Compare this accusation with 6:11-14 when Paul himself was an accuser.

This is the man. The phrase implies that already, before this crisis blew up, evil rumours had been put round Jerusalem about Paul. "This is the man you've heard about!"

Against the law. Strange irony! He was actually being prevented from keeping the Law.

Greeks . . . into the temple. Facts made to fit the need. Trophimus becomes Greeks, and a street of Jerusalem becomes the temple! Of course, in another sense (Eph. 2:14) this is precisely what Paul was doing - bringing Greeks into the Lord's New Temple!

29. Seen before. The preposition here might imply anticipation: 'He has a Gentile with him in Jerusalem; therefore he means to bring him into the temple!'

RV: The Ephesian, i.e. the only Ephesian in the party.

30. All the city. An effective hyperbole for an immense crowd.

RV. dragged him. The verb is continuous.

31. RV: tidings came up; and cp. v.32; ran down. Literally correct, for Antonia was built to overlook the temple.

32. Cp. 23:27;24:7-three different reportings!

33. Bound. The prophecies made to Paul begin to be fulfilled. For the next five years he was a prisoner. See 20:23; 21:11; 26:19; Eph. 3:1; 4:1; Ph. 1:13; Col. 4:3,18; Philem. 1.

34. Could not know. The Greek neatly implies that he had no clear idea who Paul was, but was quite sure he was a criminal of some sort.

35. The Stairs; s.w. LXX for Songs of Degrees. Consider the special relevance of Ps. 120,121.

Borne of the soldiers. How undignified, Paul!

Violence: s.w. 27:41.

36. Followed after implies an insistent pressing to get at Paul.

Away with him. Cp. Lk. 23:18. The phrase might be a close equivalent to String him up!'

37. Canst thou speak Greek? But of course in those days nearly everybody could speak Greek, especially among the Jewish Egyptian community. So it must have been the quality of Paul's Greek that was referred to.

38. That Egyptian. In one place Josephus says this desperado had 30,000 behind him. Yet in another, 200-400 slain. Josephus is notoriously undependable regarding numbers. Perhaps the 4,000 mentioned here were his immediate disciples.

[Resource Manager]

93. Paul's speech to the temple crowd (22:1-21)

 

The great crowd, the more impressed that Paul in his present ragged and battered condition should address them in their local tongue, had fallen completely silent. Curiosity also played no small part in this willingness to give him a hearing, although their violent indignation against him was in no way assuaged.

 

The apostle knew that he faced bitter charges of being "against the people (of Israel), against the Law, against the temple" (21:28). So in a most conciliatory tone he began: "Men, brethren, and fathers." Thus he proclaimed that he was one of them. He noted that the crowd had made room for certain members of the Sanhedrin, including Caiaphas, now ex-high-priest; so he acknowledged their presence with the word "fathers."

 

Rapidly he sketched out the story of his early days. Not a Jerusalem Jew, agreed! but compensating for that by being tu­tored ("nourished") by the great Gama­liel. This part of his speech was not just self-testimonial. The point he wanted them to infer was that, knowing the Law as well as any man in Jerusalem, ("exactly, accurately"; v.3), he had found it insuffi­cient.

 

His campaign of persecution

 

There followed the story of his rampage of persecution against this sect of the Nazarenes (on this, see chapter 30). If he, more inflexible and violent against the believers than even they were, should switch to being a convert, then let them ask themselves how strong was the force which had wrought such a change in him. 'You find this difficult to accept? There are those here who witnessed and remember it!'

 

Then in great detail he told how he, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, enjoying the full confidence of the rulers, became a dedicated disciple of the execrated Jesus.

 

The facts of that appearance of a living Lord were not to be gainsaid. The men who had been with him on the Damascus road could testify to a quite extraordinary appearance. These were hard facts of seeing and hearing which no gainsayer could explain away.

 

With special purpose also he dwelt on the character of the one who had received him, by divine direction, into the Faith: "Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there." Paul wanted them to realise that it was not a spirit of perverse rebellion which turned men into disciples of the Nazarene.

 

Conversion

 

Coming to him, this Ananias had spoken with authority in the name of "the God of our fathers." Were these the words of a man who was turning away from the traditional faith of Jewry? For through this highly respected Jew had come first a startling and meaningful miracle of sight restored: and then a commission now associated with the name of Paul in every Jewish mind, to witness concerning Jesus to "all men," that is, to all kinds of men - the reprobated word "Gentiles" was being carefully avoided, thus allow­ing them to assume that he meant "all Jews, everywhere." And it meant for them, as it had done for him, the forgive­ness of sins, even the hatred and oppressive violence he - and they also - had shown against the Name of Christ.

 

Even in these circumstances, nothing could restrain Paul from seeking to con­vert these haters of the Faith.

 

He told how, back in Jerusalem, when he was praying in the temple, there was another personal appearance of his new Leader. Would a man full of contempt for the temple and its services pursue his devotions there? And if Jesus chose to make revelations in those sacred courts, what were they to infer from that? Very cleverly, without thrusting the point home too vigorously, he was insinuating into his story time and again the fact that the Jesus he now served was risen from the dead!

[Resource Manager]

A mission to — Gentiles

 

The commission now given him to take the message far afield had been resisted: 'Lord, they know how bitterly and savage­ly I persecuted the Faith. Then, when they see and hear me witnessing on your behalf, here in Jerusalem, they are sure to believe!'

 

No! they would do nothing of the sort (thus Paul reminded them of their own obduracy): "Depart (Jesus had said), for I will send thee far hence unto the Gen­tiles."

 

That last word, to which Paul had certainly been guided by the inspiration that was in him (Mt. 10:19), was the match to the powder keg, and forthwith there was a mighty explosion, heard all over Jerusalem.

 

 

Notes: 22:1-21

3. The perfect manner of the law of the fathers. Cp. Gal. 1:14.

As ye all are this day. 'I'm not blaming you, for you are doing just what I did.' Thus he used their zeal and violence to convey some idea of his own. 6,9. Cp. Dan. 10:6-9.

17. Came again to Jerusalem. See 9:26-29.

18. Get thee out. The Greek (= come forth) might imply that Christ himself was forsaking the temple also; but it need not carry this meaning.

19. RV: they themselves know, implying 'So they must believe what I tell them! Was Paul being rather ingenuous here?

21. Gentiles. Does the use of this hated word suggest that Paul thought he had captured the crowd, and that they would now tolerate what he had to say about acceptance of the Gentiles: He had to come to this point sooner or later, because of the lie disseminated about Trophimus.

[Resource Manager]

94. A Roman Citizen (22:22-30)

 

"Gentiles!" As soon as Paul dared to mention a preaching mission to despised and hated outsiders, the worst prejudices in the minds of this Jewish crowd erupted uncontrollably. 'So all the rest that he said to us just now was so much eyewash! He's been talking with his tongue in his cheek!' And a roar of rage boiled up and swept over the speaker like a tidal wave.

 

Not one of them recalled the prophecy of their great Moses that "God will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; he will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation" (Dt. 32:21). Paul saw his own mission as a fulfilment of those words: "If by any means I may provoke unto emulation (RV: jealousy) them which are my flesh, and might save some" (Rom. 11:14).

 

It may be that, here and there in that vast shouting multitude, there were a few who had been impressed with the witness they had just heard, but if so they were few indeed, and too apprehensive to show their sympathies.

 

Did Paul have to venture on to what he must have known to be very thin ice? It is interesting to speculate on how he had hoped to develop his appeal that day. On these lines?: 'Remember! my commission to preach to Gentiles was given me here in this temple. You must know that God intends this holy place to be a temple for all nations (Is. 56:7). So either we Jews must use our higher privileges to bring Gentiles to God through Christ, or God will use Gentiles to destroy this temple which is now kept for Jews only. Instead He will build a new and different temple in which Jews and Gentiles can worship together.'

 

The spite of the mob

 

Whether that was his intention or not, here all at once was a sudden end. It was Jerusalem's last chance, now being indig­nantly and fiercely thrust away. "They lifted up their voice" (RV) as one man, and howled their hatred like a pack of dogs. Were they any better than the mindless pagan rabble that shouted for Diana of Ephesians? Many of them peeled off their outer garments as an extravagant gesture against blasphemy (as they deemed it; 18:6), or in preparation for a stoning (7:58). Many of them gathered handfuls of gravel, and emulating Shimei the Benjamite when he cursed David (2 Sam. 16:13), they cast it and their own curses at the speaker in contempt:

 

"Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live." Their mode of phrase implied: 'He should have been arrested long ago!'

 

The Roman captain was utterly bewil­dered by this situation, because his Latin and Greek helped him not at all in this Aramaic bedlam. The obvious hostility baffled him. If Paul was a rebel, like that Egyptian, why was he not popular with this crowd? The captain had Paul hauled back into the fortress of Antonia, and gave curt order that he be scourged. Possibly under this persuasion he would make some confession of crime which his speech had so far kept hidden; or, more probably, after the beating he had already had from the Jewish mob, he would collapse under the scourging, and then it could be announced that he had been flogged to death. The crowd, satisfied, would then disperse - and this, after all, was what the captain wanted more than anything.

[Resource Manager]

Flogging?

 

So, with little delay, Paul found himself stripped and tied up with leather thongs in what was probably the same place where his Lord had suffered scourging from another Roman squad (Jn. 19:1). This was not the first time the apostle had found himself about to endure such torture: "Of the Jews five times received I forty-stripes-save-one. Thrice was I beaten (by the Romans) with rods" (2 Cor. 11:24, 25).

 

Bonds and imprisonment had been foretold for him, and to these he was resigned. But the horror of scourging now to begin might permanently impair his witness. So he spoke quietly to the centurion in charge of the operation: 'Do you have any right to scourge a Roman citizen? - and one untried, uncon­demned, too!'

 

Apprehension

 

With a startled look on his face, the centurion turned on his heel and came briskly to his commanding officer: 'Have a care, sir. This man is a Roman citizen. Did you know?'

 

Within seconds the captain was on the spot himself. 'Is this true?' he asked, with both astonishment and trepidation in his voice. 'Are you really a Roman citizen?' This prisoner did not look like a man of consequence.

 

'Indeed I am', Paul replied.

 

'But how, how? This privilege cost me an awful lot of money, as I well re­member.'

 

Paul explained: 'I am not only a Jew by birth, I am also a free-born Roman.'

 

On hearing this the soldiers apparently did not wait for an order but loosed the apostle's bonds at once. Captain, centu­rion, and men were all very uneasy, for they all knew that in two respects the law had been overstepped - a Roman citizen had been bound, and an order given to scourge him.

 

There was now no more threat of violence. Nothing more than light arrest. The captain made up his mind to two things. First, a messenger instructed by Paul would go to his friends in the city to verify this remarkable claim to Roman citizenship, for if it were false the penalty would be summary execution. Second, there was an instruction to the chief priest to summon a full meeting of the Sanhedrin for next morning. The mystery surround­ing this Jewish Roman must be cleared up.

 

Notes: 22:22-30

23. Cried out: s.w. Jn. 18:40; 19:6,12,15.

Cast off their clothes, as some of them had done at the Lord's Triumphal Entry! 25. Lawful for you. The pronoun is plural. All were likely to be in trouble, from the captain downwards. Why did not Paul make a similar appeal when beaten at Philippi? It has been speculated that Paul's cry: "I am a Roman," was drowned in the noise of the crowd (16:22,23).

With thongs, or - as RVm - for the thongs, the leather scourges. Perhaps unlikely, for normally a different word mastix was used for these.

28. With a great sum. Most probably a bribe to one of Caesar's officials. There was a lot of this.

29. The chief captain also, implying that his men were fearful too.

Because he had bound him; v.25, not21:33. Bezan text adds: and straightway he loosed him.

[Resource Manager]

95. Before the Sanhedrin (23:1-11)

 

Next morning, then Paul was put in the charge of some of the temple guard - Jew­ish police - and led into the Hall of Hewn Stone in the temple area. This judgement hall was remarkable in that it was built half in the sacred temple area and half outside it on profane ground, thus allowing of a Gentile presence when a case was of special concern to the Romans. There a full assembly of the Council was to inquire what degree of blame lay on Paul for the previous day's uproar.

 

The apostle stood there, looking intent­ly from face to face. It was more than twenty years since he had been a mem­ber of that august assembly, but there were still a fair number of faces that he could recognize. Later on (26:5) he was to appeal to their personal knowledge concerning him.

 

What a sequence of Christian witnes­ses that Sanhedrin had had before it! -first, Jesus himself; then the apostles (Acts 5); then Stephen; and now it was Paul's own turn to testify bravely and forcefully to the Truth of Christ.

 

So he began: "Men and brethren!" In his address to them, there was a studied omission of "Fathers" - a reminder that he spoke to them on equal terms. And as an intimation that he was there not to be tried but to explain, he went on: "I have lived (pepoliteumai) in all good conscien­ce before God until this day." The apos­tle's choice of an unusual word may have referred to his life as a fully-committed member of the polity of Israel (Phil. 1:27 s.w; cp. Eph. 2:12) - he was no re­negade. But there may also have been allusion to the way in which he had lately made use of his Roman citizenship (22:25,28; cp. Phil. 3:20).

[Resource Manager]

Ananias the high priest

 

Perhaps the high priest took his asser­tion in this sense, and since he himself followed a strong pro-Roman policy, he felt it necessary to dissociate himself from Paul; so he roughly bade one of his minions smite Paul across the mouth that could say such offensive things. Or, it may be that he resented Paul's assumption of equal status with those he now addres­sed. Or, perhaps recalling the fiery per­secution Paul had, years before, let loose on the disciples, he felt this positive claim to "a good conscience" a piece of arrant hypocrisy.

 

This Ananias was an evil man, one of the worst of a sequence of high priestly rascals - "a bold man in his temper, and very insolent," Josephus wrote concern­ing him. He had been in trouble with the Romans for his rough treatment of the Samaritans, and had had to face trial in Rome because of it. Acquitted, he held on to his high office until A.D.58. Another of his evil deeds was to sequester the tithe of corn that should have gone to the subsist­ence of the poor priests.

 

Now it seemed that Paul was to share the experience of Micaiah, smitten across the face by Zedekiah the false prophet (1 Kgs. 22:24), and Jeremiah ill-treated by his enemy Passhur (Jer. 20:2), and the Lord Jesus similarly smitten before Annas the high priest (Jn. 18:22).

 

But now, before the blow could be struck, Paul exposed the illegality of it with a sharp retort: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" (cp. Jn. 7:51).

 

Some assert that in this hard response Paul fell a long way below the example of his Lord who had quietly rebuked the one who humiliated him so: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (cp. 1 Pet. 2:23). But on other occasions, Jesus himself had exposed his adversaries' hypocrisy in blistering fashion. "Whited sepulchres," he had called them, "full of dead men's bones and all uncleaness." Paul's figure, taken from one of two Old Testament Scriptures, was - somewhat similarly -that of a mud wall well white-washed to make it look much better that it really was.

 

Ezekiel had exposed the perversions of the false prophets of his day as "a wall... daubed with untempered mortar" (13:10). And the LXX version had given an unfamiliar twist to a familiar and graphic proverb: "It is better to dwell in a corner in the open-air than in plastered (white-washed) rooms with unrighteous­ness and in a common (i.e. unclean) house" (Pr. 21:9). Was Paul now thinking of the temple as an unclean House?

 

Now, like an austere Old Testament prophet he denounced judgement on one who had earned it ten times over. Two apparently irreconcilable stories have been handed down as to the fate of Ananias. The Talmud says that soon after being deposed from the high-priesthood in A.D.58 he was killed by the son of Gamaliel. But according to Josephus it was not until A.D.66, as the Roman war was boiling up, that because of his Roman sympathies he was hunted by the Dagger Men, desperadoes whom formerly he had been glad to make use of. These now assassinated him when he was seeking refuge in a sewer.

 

In response to Paul's invective some of the high priest's minions who stood by took Paul to task for his fiery reply: 'Who are you to talk about "according to the law" and "contrary to the law"? Reviling God's high priest, you are no better!'

 

And, indeed, ever since that day there has been no lack of Paul enthusiasts ready enough to denounce Paul for what he said. Which thing can only be done by those ignorant of the Lord's own very plain assurance:

 

"When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your heavenly Father which speaketh in you" (Mt. 10:19,20). So there need be neither criticism of nor apology for Paul in this incident.

[Resource Manager]

Paul explains

 

Nor in what followed - for the apostle's rejoinder has added problem to problem:

 

"I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people" (Ex. 22:28).

 

Why didn't Paul know that this angry man was none other than high priest?

 

Says one: Ever since his blindness and conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul's eyesight had been poor. This is a purblind "explanation" for it assumes that Jesus, the Lord of Glory, had the power to take away Paul's sight in an instant, but had not both the power and the will to do more than partially restore it! A strange notion, surely. (There seems to be implied also - in 22:1,6 - that Paul was able to recognize individuals in the crowd before him).

 

Says another: Ananias may not have been wearing his high-priestly robes, but instead may have been clad in plain white (hence "whited wall"?), and thus recogni­tion was not easy. The point is also added that Paul had been so long away from Jerusalem that the high priest would be quite unknown to him.

 

Others take a different line - that Ananias was in effect a usurper, his appointment to office having been cont­rived by one of the Herods; and thus Paul's: "I knew not. . ." was really a blunt refusal, for that reason, to recognize him as high priest. The idiom is comparable to the decision of the Judge of all in the Last Day: "Depart from me: I never knew you" (Mt. 25:12;7:23).

 

Another suggestion is that Paul spoke with biting irony, as who should say: 'What! that character God's high priest? Impossible!'

 

Or it may be that, without irony, the apostle meant: 'The only true high priest is Jesus whom I serve. Since his resurrection all other priesthood is nugatory.'

 

Whichever is the true explanation, Paul certainly disarmed further criticism by his ready quotation from Exodus against the reviling of any ruler in Israel. That would surely show the Council how untrue was the scandalous report that he was against Israel and the Law (21:28).

 

So the investigation proceeded. There was probably a formal statement of charges asserted against Paul (e.g. de­filing the temple), and apparently witnes­ses were called (25:11). Then Paul had an opportunity to clear himself.

 

It may be inferred (especially from v.6,9), that once again his main line of defence was to re-tell, as on the previous day, the gripping story of his early life and how he came to be transformed from virulent persecutor to confident preacher of a gospel centring in Jesus, a Messiah risen from the dead. In view of the two accounts already included in Acts (ch.9,22) and the need for a further re-statement in even more dramatic form later on (ch.26), Luke could well afford to leave it out here.

[Resource Manager]

Divider's cry or sincere appeal?

 

By far the most common interpretation of what ensued is that Paul fell into the temptation to employ a certain Machiavel­lian astuteness by throwing an apple of discord into the assembly. It is assumed that he saw the long-standing controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees as a glorious opportunity to "divide and rule" -Pharisee means Separatist. Sadducee originally signified The Righteous, but by this time had probably been popularly corrupted to mean Destroyers (of right­eousness). See also "Studies in the Gospels", ch. 102.

 

If indeed this was Paul's intention and method, then there is no reason why he should be defended for so doing. But those who really know the apostle will realise how completely foreign to his nature such an unworthy device would be. In any case, was not this speech, and the appeal in which it culminated, part of that inspiration which the Lord had promised to his apostles when making their witness for the Faith? (Mt. 10:19,20).

 

So if there is a less discreditable interpretation of Paul's words and ac­tions, it is more likely to be correct.

 

He knew that there already existed in the assembly before him a very acute division regarding certain basic principles of Christian faith. Sadducee belief about life after death was almost wholly nega­tive. They accepted neither the idea of survival nor of revival. The best they could offer was the notion that a man lives on in the succeeding generations of his family. "The faith of the Sadducees is well described by negatives!"

 

By contrast the Pharisees somehow managed to believe in both the immortal­ity of the soul and the resurrection of the body. They had also a most elaborate system of belief in angels of good and angels of evil. In the Sanhedrin the Pharisees were definitely in the majority. Al ready not a few of their sect had come to faith in Christ (e.g. 15:5). And those who hadn't certainly looked for a Messiah, and certainly believed in resurrection at the Last Day. If only Paul could persuade them that Jesus was that Messiah and that his resurrection was the first-fruits of their looked-for resurrection!

 

So, dominated now as always by an intense eagerness to make a worthy witness for Christ, he decided that, since it was hopeless to think of making much impression on the Sadducees, he may as well go all out to get the gospel over to the Pharisees now sitting before him.

 

Turning specially to them, he pointedly reminded them of his origins: "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees." Whether he meant 'descended from a long line of Pharisees' or, idiomatically, 'educated by Pharisee teachers,' is not clear. But either way he now had them on his side.

[Resource Manager]

Divider's cry or sincere appeal?

 

By far the most common interpretation of what ensued is that Paul fell into the temptation to employ a certain Machiavel­lian astuteness by throwing an apple of discord into the assembly. It is assumed that he saw the long-standing controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees as a glorious opportunity to "divide and rule" -Pharisee means Separatist. Sadducee originally signified The Righteous, but by this time had probably been popularly corrupted to mean Destroyers (of right­eousness). See also "Studies in the Gospels", ch. 102.

 

If indeed this was Paul's intention and method, then there is no reason why he should be defended for so doing. But those who really know the apostle will realise how completely foreign to his nature such an unworthy device would be. In any case, was not this speech, and the appeal in which it culminated, part of that inspiration which the Lord had promised to his apostles when making their witness for the Faith? (Mt. 10:19,20).

 

So if there is a less discreditable interpretation of Paul's words and ac­tions, it is more likely to be correct.

 

He knew that there already existed in the assembly before him a very acute division regarding certain basic principles of Christian faith. Sadducee belief about life after death was almost wholly nega­tive. They accepted neither the idea of survival nor of revival. The best they could offer was the notion that a man lives on in the succeeding generations of his family. "The faith of the Sadducees is well described by negatives!"

 

By contrast the Pharisees somehow managed to believe in both the immortal­ity of the soul and the resurrection of the body. They had also a most elaborate system of belief in angels of good and angels of evil. In the Sanhedrin the Pharisees were definitely in the majority. Al ready not a few of their sect had come to faith in Christ (e.g. 15:5). And those who hadn't certainly looked for a Messiah, and certainly believed in resurrection at the Last Day. If only Paul could persuade them that Jesus was that Messiah and that his resurrection was the first-fruits of their looked-for resurrection!

 

So, dominated now as always by an intense eagerness to make a worthy witness for Christ, he decided that, since it was hopeless to think of making much impression on the Sadducees, he may as well go all out to get the gospel over to the Pharisees now sitting before him.

 

Turning specially to them, he pointedly reminded them of his origins: "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees." Whether he meant 'descended from a long line of Pharisees' or, idiomatically, 'educated by Pharisee teachers,' is not clear. But either way he now had them on his side.

[Resource Manager]

The resurrection - a crucial issue

 

So next came his great challenge: "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." This may have been a hendiadys for 'the hope of being raised from the dead' (cp. 24:15), or an ellipsis for 'the Hope of Israel which will be consummated in the resurrection' (cp. 26:6,7; 28:20).

 

It is noteworthy that in this period of his witness Paul seems to have decided that the most hopeful way of making an impression on Jewish minds was by hammering away at the Promises and the Old Testament doctrine of resurrection, so that the message of the resurrection of Jesus would then find a logical place alongside these noble ideas.

 

Paul's declaration of faith created im­mediate uproar - not only sustained shouting but also after a while hand-to-hand fighting, so great was the animosity between the rival parties. Presumably certain of the Sadducees made a grab at Paul with the intention of silencing him, only to have him equally strongly de­fended by Pharisees, so that there were real fears that the apostle might be pulled in two.

 

"We find no evil in this man," shouted the Pharisees. It was their "Not Guilty," a judgement to be repeated in the next few years at Caesarea and in Rome (23:29; 25:25; 26:31). Hearing Paul's account of the Lord's appearances to him, without necessarily committing themselves to belief in the resurrection of Jesus, they were prepared to believe that some' 'spirit or angel has spoken to him." Accepting the gist of Paul's story, they reinforced their defence of the apostle by quoting the good counsel of Gamaliel at the trial of the Twelve: "Let us not fight against God" (5:39).

 

As the situation deteriorated and the chief captain became aware of the dis­turbance the temple guard was sent into action to rescue Paul from the warring factions. The attempt at a Sanhedrin enquiry had proved a total failure.

 

Despondency

 

So Paul found himself back in Antonia, a prisoner without hardship, but with no better prospect of release. That night, in low spirits because all his well-intentioned efforts in Jerusalem seemed to be brought to nought, he prayed for wisdom and help and very probably for deliver­ance.

 

Then, all at once, the Lord Jesus himself stood by him:

 

"Be of good cheer, Paul." It is a warm encouragement which comes eight times in the New Testament, and always spoken by the Lord Jesus.

 

"Thou hast fully testified of me in Jerusalem" - if neither people nor leaders would give heed, he must not distress himself on that account. Nor need he worry that getting to Rome (19:21) should seem so completely out of question:

 

"It is necessary that thou bear witness also at Rome." With this reassurance - an invaluable promise! - Paul rested con­tent.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 23:1-11

1. Men and brethren. Note 4:8; 7:2.

Good conscience. He meant, of course, in the service of Christ (2 Cor. 4:2), not the earlier days of persecution, long reprobated.

5. The ruler of thy people. A two-edged quote. What about Jesus, now designated the true ruler of Israel?

6. The other. Gk:heteros, different; not alios, another of the same sort.

Cried out. The verb is continuous. It seems to suggest that there was so much interruption and hubbub that Paul had to shout out over and over again.

7. The multitude. Was Luke intending to suggest by this word a certain contempt for their behaviour?

9. Let us not fight against God. Textually there is good evidence for both inclusion and exclusion of these words. If the latter, then (as RV) a broken sentence; or, as in 1:6 Gk., an interrogative: "But did an angel speak to him?"

10. The chief captain was probably in Antonia at the top of the stairs, and informed by messenger of the developing situation.

Fearing. The Greek word means either piety, fear of God, or- as in this case - fear of a higher authority. Paul's Roman citizenship had certainly left its mark on this officer's mind.

Go down . . . bring him. These verbs describe the situation very accurately. "Bring" seems to imply that even the Roman officer dare not risk entering the temple area himself.

11. The night following. Cp. visions by night in 18:9; 27:23,24. Thou must bear witness also in Rome. How the Roman Catholic Church must wish that this had been said to Peter!

[Resource Manager]

96. Plot and Escape (23:12-35)

 

Just as Pilate and Herod, opposite ex­tremes, were made friends together through a mutual reluctance to destroy Jesus, so now Sadducees and the ultra-orthodox (as they would be called in modern Israel) were well content to plot together to get rid of Paul.

 

The dagger men

 

The outcome of the Sanhedrin riot pleased neither of these groups. So, that night, whilst Paul's spirits were being revived by encouragement from the Lord Jesus, others were finding comfort in their own "divine right of assassination." About forty of Paul's enemies - most probably, suggests Edersheim, members of a Cha­burah, a religious fraternity or club - now laid their plans how best to finish off this pestilent preacher.

 

In the morning their leaders went to the chief priests with a proposition which left these holy autocrats free of all risk. Let them persuade the chief captain, if need be by bribery, to re-convene next day that abortive Sanhedrin enquiry, promising good behaviour and full co-operation from all parties. The ostensible purpose would be, of course, to clear up one or two ambiguities about Paul's religious atti­tude. Then whilst the prisoner was being escorted by a handful of temple police -also to be bribed? - it would be a relatively easy matter for their squad of forty Dagger Men to burst through and finish Paul off.

 

The men of the temple should, of course, have been the first to prevent this plot from materialising. Instead they smiled benevolently on the project. The inflexible resolution of these thugs pleased them not a little.

 

Their oath

 

So utterly determined were these forty zealots that they had bound themselves by an oath to carry the scheme through.

 

Until the corpse of Paul had been riddled with stab wounds, all were resolved neither to eat nor drink. It may be that this oath had special reference to holy food, the partaking of any peace-offering in the temple court. And the curse which they invoked on themselves in the event of failure had something of the same flavour, for in contemporary Jewry anathema meant excommunication from temple and synagogue (Ezr. 10:8; cp. Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8,9 - and Mk. 14:71?).

 

But doubtless they were all reassuring themselves that if their terrorist scheme came to nought the rabbis would find some casuistic wangle to absolve them from any undesirable consequ­ences. The Jerusalem Talmud has a paragraph which might well be a com­mentary on this very situation: "If a man makes a vow to abstain from food, woe to him if he eateth, and, woe to him if he does not eat! If he eateth, he sinneth against his vow; if he does not eat, he sins against his life. What then must he do? Let him go before the sages, and they will absolve him from his vow."

[Resource Manager]

The plot divulged

 

It is near impossible for forty men to keep a secret. And in any case the plotters would feel pretty confident that there was no risk at all of Paul or the chief captain hearing of their intention.

 

But the son of Paul's sister, who apparently was associated by inclination and temperament with the extremist par­ty, overheard the plotting and resolved to give warning. It would seem that, during this visit to Jerusalem, or maybe earlier, Paul had become reconciled with his family from which his faith had estranged him.

 

A visit to the apostle in Antonia was easy, for he was held under the lightest possible form of restraint. As soon as Paul heard from his nephew what was afoot, he asked one of the centurions to take the young man to the captain. The youth was very courteously received, for 'Who knows?' the captain probably said to himself, 'this may well be another free­born Roman citizen!'

 

Elaborate precautions

 

As soon as the story was told, Claudius Lysias' mind was made up. 'Thanks for telling me this. Now, don't breathe a word about it to another soul!' And forthwith he proceeded to issue detailed instructions to his two best centurions. Infantry, caval­ry, and spearmen (if indeed that is what the Greek word means) - nearly five hundred of them all told - were to act as Paul's escort to Caesarea, away from the threat of the IRA in Jerusalem. The captain's error of judgement before hear­ing mention of that magic phrase "Roman citizen" was now being atoned for in every way possible. And it may be taken as fairly certain that he would have assurance from Paul that no complaint would be made to the governor about his treatment in Antonia. Certain early texts add as explanation of this great concern for Paul that "he (the chief captain) feared that the Jews, snatching him away, would kill him, and himself afterwards be accused as one having received money (i.e. taken a bribe to facilitate the assassination)."

 

The captain's instructions to his centu­rions included the provision of "beasts, to set Paul on." That plural seems to imply that others were to accompany the apos­tle, and since Luke and Aristarchus are known to have shared his journey to Rome (27:1,2 and Titus also, maybe), it is not unlikely that permission was given for these faithful brethren to travel as Paul's "servants".

 

Departure time was set for nine o'clock that night. There was a full moon, so the night march would be easy and also more comfortable than in the mid-day heat.

 

But before sunset there would come the bland request from the chief priests for a re-convening of the enquiry about Paul - readily agreed to, with tongue in cheek. Then next morning the general dis­appointment and exasperation would be shrugged off with a second-thoughts ex­planation: The governor would be sure to want to handle so important a matter himself, so the sooner the accusers could present themselves in Caesarea, the sooner the matter could be sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.

 

The night ride brought Paul and his guard thirty-five miles on the way as far as Antipatris. Paul was now well out of danger, so after a few hours' rest most of the detachment returned to Jerusalem, and the next night the rest took the apostle the remaining twenty-five miles, and deli­vered him next morning, with an explana­tory letter from Claudius Lysias, to the governor Felix.

[Resource Manager]

Claudius Lysias and Felix

 

The letter told the bare essentials about Paul's case, at the same time being subtly slanted to present the writer of it in a favourable light. For example, the Greek has a deliberate ambiguity allowing Felix to read into it that the captain had taken strong action in the first place because he knew Paul to be a Roman citizen. There is also a hint that the captain had an efficient underground information service. And (at the end of v.29) the Bezan text has a short addition: "and I scarcely brought him forth (from the Sanhedrin) with force," as though implying heroic efforts by the captain and his men. The intimation that the accusers had been told to follow up their case before the governor was not strictly true, for they were only told this after the letter had been sent.

 

Rather surprisingly, the letter also in­cluded a personal expression of opinion that Paul had "nothing laid to his charge worthy of death" (cp. 18:14,15). Luke is already set on working into his narrative every possible indication that his friend was not guilty (cp. 25:25; 26:31).

 

Felix (more about him later!) briefly asked Paul "what kind of province" he came from. If peradventure he was from one of those administered by the Herods, it would then be easy for Felix to "pass the buck" in characteristic civil service fashion (cp. Lk. 23:8). Or if from some other near-by province, then there might be opportunity to have enquiries made about the apostle's personal history, But Tarsus in Cilicia was too remote for that. 'I'll hear the whole story when they come from Jerusalem,' the governor said curtly. So Paul was led away to be kept as a prisoner of privilege.

 

Philip and the brethren in Caesarea would soon hear about Paul and doubt­less have ready access to him. It had taken only ten days or so for the fulfilment of the prophecy which had been made in their hearing (21:11).

 

 

Notes: 23:12-35

12. Certain of the Jews banded together. Farrar quotes 12:5, and contrasts that with complete absence of any hint of the same on Paul's behalf! Josephus, in his Antiquities 20.8.5, has an eloquent paragraph about the methods of these Dagger Men and their willingness to attempt any villainy in return for a bribe. "Terrorism" is not a twentieth-century invention.

14. A curse. Ironically Dt. 20:17 has the identical phraseology, but here in the sense of utter destruction for those unfit to live in the Holy Land. Note also Lev. 5:4.

16. Told Paul, as in 14:6.

17. The unusual detail in this narrative surely suggests that Luke himself was present at the time - as a friend of Paul visiting him in prison? Or was he the "Gentile" trespasser in the temple, who had sparked off the great row? In that case, he must have suffered buffetting and arrest along with Paul. But it is like him to leave his own part in the affair unmentioned.

20. To ask thee. The Greek word normally describes a request to one of equal status. Luke's use of language is very exact.

23. Spearmen. This translation is a guess.

The third hour. Full moon may be deduced from the fact that this was a week after Pentecost, which itself was seven weeks after Passover which is always at full moon.

25. After this manner, i.e. not verbatim. Not improbably the captain read the letter to Paul before sending it.

27. This man. The Greek uses a more dignified word than in 22:26.

Came. The word implies sudden brisk action. Compare the way in which other men of the world dress up their actions in the best possible light: 25:9,20; Dan. 2:25.

35. Herod's judgement hall. RV: palace-taken over by the Roman administration.

[Resource Manager]

97. Tertullus (24:1-9)

 

Roman judges were instructed, in normal conditions, to try a case within three days of receiving the documents relating to it. Aware of this, the elders in Jerusalem knew that, because of the two-day jour­ney to Caesarea, they must be ready to make their case before Felix within five days (v.1) of Paul's transfer from Antonia. This meant no small amount of upheav­al in their affairs. But so great was their rancour against the Lord's apostle, especially on the part of that "whited wall" Ananias, that they were willing to put up with any trouble or discomfort.

 

Orator and lawyer

 

It seems very probable that, because of their constant dealings with the Roman authorities, the Sanhedrin had their own Jewish Rome-trained legal expert who would be able to advise on niceties of Roman law and also sort out possible conflicts of principle vis-a-vis their own legal system. Such a one was Tertullus, who throughout talked as a Jew repre­senting Jews - "we have found ... him we took ... our law ... we accuse him" -but whose oration (so the linguistic ex­perts say) shows every sign of having been delivered to the governor in the most elegant Latin.

 

Felix

 

Thanks to Josephus and Roman histor­ians a fair amount is known about Felix who was now to hear the case. He was the younger brother of Claudius Caesar's top favourite, a freed slave who succeeded in making a thorough mess of the Roman rule of Judaea. Apart from the fact that in the early years of his administration he suppressed various robber bands and put down at least one insurrection (21:38), all that is known about him is bad. "The dubious light in which the character of Felix appears in the New Testament narrative is bright compared with that shed upon it by the other histories of the time" (HDB-"Felix").

 

When the Sicarii, the Dagger-Men arose, Felix was even willing to use them for his own ends and to share their plunder. He had them assassinate Jonathan, the only decent high-priest for years. His methods provoked more and more violence in Judaea, so that "under him rebellion became permanent." At last (v.27) he was recalled to Rome and only saved from indictment before the new Caesar by the back-stairs manoeuvres of his brother. In a famous quotation Tacitus summed him up thus: "He exercised the prerogative of a king, with all cruelty and lust, in the spirit of a slave."

 

Such was the man who now had in his power the life or death of one who in ability, character and virtue was im­measurably superior to himself.

[Resource Manager]

A fulsome speech

 

After the formal preliminaries (the lan­guage here has a distinctly legal flavour), Tertullus began an elaborate oration. Obviously Luke's version of it is not verbatim, but a summary. The speech could not possibly have been so short - a mere seven verses.

 

The advocate made a brave start, but finished off (v.8) somewhat lamely. To a man the commentators fall back on the word "fulsome." There could be no bigger contrast with Paul's plain-spoken approach (v.10). The smarminess of this speech suggests that Tertullus was con­scious of having to make the best of a poor case.

 

First, then, he lauded the "great quiet­ness" the nation had enjoyed (but only for about the first two years!) under Felix. This was the way to the heart of any Roman governor, for it was this reputation more than any which they all coveted. 'All the time and everywhere, thanks to your foresight and planning, there are improve­ments and reforms.' This was a great lie, but what did Tertullus care? He even slipped in a word which very frequently meant "divine providence."

 

'We welcome this, your excellency, with gratitude and enthusiasm. But (much as I should like) I must not go on in this strain or I shall hold you up from pursuing your other worthy activities' - so he implied.

 

'Let me then impose on your sweetly-reasonable yieldingness whilst outlining in only a condensed form the case against this Paul of Tarsus'

 

'There is a three-fold charge against him, one of them political and two reli­gious. He is constantly stirring up unrest and provoking riots in lots of places. Time after time this has happened. He is a pestilence, infecting multitudes with the same evil spirit. In Jewry he is a leading character in the hateful sect of the Nazarenes. And, most specifically, he has shown an intention to defile the holy temple in Jerusalem.'

 

Was Tertullus aware that the charges he was now preferring were almost exactly those brought against Jesus in his trial? (Lk. 23:5; Mt. 26:61). But he must have been conscious of presenting a very thin case.

 

The first charge was an unprincipled distortion. True, in many a city - Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus (to name only some) -there had been riots and disturbances. But were they stirred up or led by Paul? This is precisely the argument of the modern demagogue: 'You will not accede to our selfish demands. So of course you are to blame for the violence which ensues.' But the referral from Claudius Lysias certainly suggested that there was another side to the story.

 

The reference to "the sect of the Nazarenes" would alert Felix's attention, for he had been resolute in his suppres­sion of false Messiahs.

 

The third charge - defiling the temple - was a smear which Tertullus knew could not be sustained in either Roman or Jewish law, but it would serve to bolster up the other accusations.

 

At this point there comes in one of the most tricky textual problems in the Book of Acts, for verses 6b,7,8a are omitted by six of the best uncial manuscripts, with a few other supporting authorities; whilst the Received Text has only two uncials but also a great mass of other later manu­scripts on its side.

 

If the passage concerned is bogus, it is difficult to see why something so circum­stantial but otherwise of no serious im­portance should have been invented. On the other hand if it is genuine, it is extremely difficult to see why it should ever have come to be omitted by so many of the best manuscripts. Perhaps, although ancient, they are not necessarily the best.

 

The words, accepted here as valid, contain just the kind of distortion of fact -"whom we seized" - as could be ex­pected in advocacy of this sort. There is also a bitter (and tactless?) complaint against Claudius Lysias - "with great violence (true?) he took him away out of our hands" - and also an insinuation that if only the captain had not meddled, the whole thing would have been swiftly and correctly dealt with by their highest Jewish court; the most excellent Felix was being troubled needlessly.

[Resource Manager]

Feeble conclusion

 

Tertullus rounded off lamely with a recommendation that if "he" - Paul or the captain, the latter probably - be examined, full confirmation of their accus­ations would be forthcoming. If he meant Paul, the "examination" suggested would be by flogging or torture. But if Claudius Lysias, wasn't the advocate asking for deferment of the case until the captain himself were present?

 

Felix was not much impressed with the assertion: 'We have a fine witness, but he is sixty miles away'? Even a long sequ­ence of Jewish notables "joining in the attack" on Paul did not mask the main fact that Claudius Lysia was essential in this trial. So Felix called their bluff by saying: 'Very well, we'll wait till Lysias is here.' But first, with a nod in Paul's direction, he gave him leave to tell his side of the story.

 

 

Notes: 24:1-9

2. Very worthy deeds; s.w. Jer. 7:3,5

3. Always and in all places. This comes in better at the end of v.2 and balances "great" (much) at the beginning of that sentence.

Accept; i.e. welcome, as in 2:41; Lk. 8:40.

Most noble Felix. An official mode of address. What hypocrisy! But not in Lk. 1:3.

4. Clemency. It was Paul who got the clemency; v.23.

5. Pestilent fellow. Man of Belial; 1 Sam. 25:25.

The Nazarenes. Cp. Jn. 7:41,42; 1:46.

6. Hath gone about to profane means; He made an attempt ... Tertullus knew that the cry of 21:28 could not be sustained.

Profane the temple. 21:28 modified. Later Paul answers these charges systematically.

Would have judged. The captain had asked them for an enquiry, not a trial.

7. Came. This word might imply: He left his proper duty in order to interfere.

[Resource Manager]

98. Before Felix (24:10-21)

 

With three charges laid against him, Paul now had opportunity to lay out his defence before the governor. The charges were these:

 

1. Creating civil disturbance and insur­rection amongst Jews in Jerusalem and throughout the empire.
   
2. "A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
   
3. Defiling the temple.

 

There was no "most noble Felix" in Paul's address to the crude careerist now trying his case. The apostle was too honest for that. But what he said, he meant:

 

A detailed defence

 

'I know that for a long time (at least six years) you have been an official in this province, and that you have had full opportunity to acquaint yourself with Jew­ish religion and outlook (an indirect allu­sion here, surely to Felix's Jewish wife). So in presenting my case I have no misgivings about being misunderstood.'

 

His first point was a simple one. From his arrival in Jerusalem to the present moment it was a mere twelve days, as Felix could easily verify:

 

1. Arrival

2. With James, on the Day of Pentecost.

2-7. Vows in the temple. Arrest.

8. Before the Sanhedrin.

9. The plot revealed. 10,11 To Caesarea.

11. In custody there.

12. Before Felix

 

In so short a time what could he achieve in the way of riot and uprising (A) in a city where he was now a comparative stran­ger for it was now many years (v. 17) since he had spent any appreciable time in Jerusalem? In any case, the manifest reason for his visit was worship and charity, not insurrection.

 

True, he had spent a fair amount of time in the temple © but this was for dis­charge of holy vows (B). Was there any evidence at all that he had made efforts either in the temple or the synagogues or the city to stir up the people to civil disobedience (A) by his oratory or dis­putations? Members of the Sanhedrin had made assertions against him, but they were not personal witnesses of any such misbehaviour, nor had any such witness been called. Wasn't it strange that there was no-one to testify from personal knowledge of any kind of illegality?

 

Paul could have rested his defence there. There was no case to answer. He knew well enough that the Roman gov­ernor, like Gallio in Corinth, was not concerned to interfere in Jewish religious disputations.

[Resource Manager]

Advocacy for the Faith

 

Then why did he go on, and at some length? In the first instance, he could not resist this further opportunity to witness to faith in Christ. But even more importantly, he wanted the Faith legally validated by as high a tribunal as possible. Until this was achieved there would be ceaseless collisions with Jewish prejudice and hos­tility, and recurring suspicion on the part of Roman administrators. The standing of the Christian Faith as religio licita, a permitted religion, needed to be estab­lished once and for all, and who better qualified to achieve this than Paul who was both highly educated Jew and Ro­man citizen? So he soldiered on, intent on making his own trial a test case for all time.

 

"They call my Faith a heresy, (that is, not a false religion - the modern meaning of the word - but a segment of Judaism with its own particular emphasis, like Pharisees or Essenes). It isn't that at all. It is The Way, the true faith of Israel, the fulfilment of all that Jews have received from ancient days in the divine promises to the Fathers, in the Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets '(B)'.

 

Paul knew that he could talk thus to a governor who had "more perfect know­ledge" (v.22) of Jewish religion.

 

'The culmination of all true Jewish hope rests in the resurrection of the dead, not only of the just but - note well, Felix! -of the unjust also! This is part of the settled purpose of God, as many Jews besides Nazarenes firmly believe. Even so those who have been testifying against me today believe this as much as I do (B). Indeed, it is an event they expect, as being not far away.'

 

The apostle resisted the temptation to expatiate on the Messianic kingdom. That would have been tactless, being liable to create suspicion of a will to undermine Roman authority.

 

Instead he emphasized the moral obligation of the Faith, such as forbad any nefarious intentions against Rome or Jerusalem:

 

'Meanwhile, until that great Day of God (a far more important tribunal than this in Caesarea), I ceaselessly exercise my­self, like an athlete keeping himself in training, to be conscience-clear both God-ward and to my fellow men, both Jews and Romans. In token of this let me tell you what I actually did in Jerusalem. One of the main purposes of my visit was to bring a considerable charity fund collected in Roman cities for the benefit of poor Jews here (B). Also I spent a con­siderable time in the temple sponsoring the discharge of holy vows and making special thank-offerings of my own ©. It was, alas, this very thing which gave rise to all the present fuss. That riot in the temple area was created entirely by others - by certain strongly prejudiced Jews from Asia - against a man pro­nounced purified (B) by the priests of the temple! (C.).'

[Resource Manager]

Witnesses

 

'Furthermore, I have here with me dependable men who can bear witness to the truth of all that I say. If, indeed, there is any serious accusation against me, those Asian Jews should be here now, testifying against me, for the trouble only blew up when they got excited. Their witness is absolutely necessary in this case - but where are they? Why are they not here? -why indeed?'

 

'Well, you do have here members of the Sanhedrin who heard my testimony the next day, and they can bear witness that no fault was found in me then. What upset the Council then was my declara­tion of faith, exactly as the majority of them believe it, in the resurrection of the dead (B). So how serious a crime is it that I am accused of?'

 

If Felix had been anything but the man he was, he would have contemptuously dismissed the case forthwith. But, charac­teristically, he saw the possibility of making capital out of this situation.

 

So instead: 'The man who knows most about this business, and who will certainly be my most trustworthy witness, is Claudius Lysias. We must have him here. (Felix had the captain's witness already in his letter!). Until he comes from Jeru­salem, the prisoner is to be kept under light arrest.'

 

 

Notes: 24:10-21

13. Believing. This emphasis on Faith is followed in v. 15 with Hope, and in v. 17 with Love.

15. Which they themselves also allow. RV: look for. The present continuous tense seems to imply expectation of early fulfilment.

16. RV: Herein do I also suggests either (a) as they do; or (b) besides believing; i.e. morals as well as faith - The Way requires both.

A conscience void of offence. Contrast Ananias and Felix! Perhaps Paul implies: I have to face a more searching tribunal than this.

17. Came. The Greek word might carry the idea: This was aside from the main activity of my life.

18. Not with multitude, nor with tumult. They - the Jews from Asia - created that upset. The text implies an ellipsis repeating these words: "with multitude, and with tumult." Paul evidently stopped short, realising that to utter such words would prefer a counter-charge and he was loathe to do that.

19. If they had. This very unusual optative surely implies: "They would have, if they could."

20. Let these say. Greek aorist: Let them say it right now!

21. Except it be — Paul is very sardonic here.

I cried out among them. Not before them, or against them. The implication is that Paul and they, the Sanhedrin, were at one on this.