Studies in Acts
Struggles with the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:24-23:11)
Before the Sanhedrin condemned the Lord Jesus to death, he had overwhelmingly proven to both the leaders and the people that he was the Messiah, by resurrecting Lazarus. After this greatest of miracles, the Council decided to kill Jesus (John 11:49-50, 53). In their meeting Jesus had confessed explicitly that he was the Son of God (Matthew 26:63-64). Finally, the Council was among the first ones to learn that he had risen from the grave. But they had adamantly denied that to the people (Matthew 28.11-15). After all of this, he had still offered the Sanhedrin, through the apostles and Stephen, the opportunity to repent from their rejection of the Messiah. Time and again they had testified before the Council that God had raised Jesus and, according to the prophecy of Psalm 110, had received him at his right hand as Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:34-36; 7:56). Now, the Holy Spirit wanted to set these facts before the Supreme Council one more time, this time from the lips of Paul. Would the people accept his testimony? Unfortunately, it resulted in a new conspiracy against his life (v.22).
Paul's Roman citizenship prevents his beating (Acts 22:24-29)
Because Paul had addressed the people in Aramaic, or in Hebrew, Claudius Lysias, the Roman garrison commander, probably understood nothing of what he said. But when the crowd burst out anew in rage at Paul's remarks, he wanted to get to the bottom of it. It seemed that people were thinking that Paul had committed a capital crime.
Therefore, he commanded that the arrestee be brought into the barracks, and to interrogate him with blows. Then it would come to light why the people had turned against him with such rage. Had Paul not heard the order given in Latin by the commander, or could he at that moment offer no resistance? For only when he saw that they were getting ready to tie him down and prepare his back for the blows with the flogging straps, he said to the centurion who was on call: "May you flog a Roman, and do so even without any kind of trial?" (cf. 16:37 in Philippi). For no one had registered a credible accusation against him, as the law required. This question came as a shock. Immediately the officer hurried to the tribune to ask: "What have you done? That man is a Roman!" If he were to have Paul flogged, and do so without any kind of trial, he would be violating two fundamental rules of Roman jurisprudence. If this ever reached the ears of his superiors, they would take such conduct very seriously.
The tribune personally went to the flogging chamber and asked Paul: "Tell me, are you really a Roman?" If an arrestee lied about this, he could expect to be put to death. But the apostle answered without any hesitation: "Yes, indeed." It was obvious that, if necessary, people could verify what he was claiming. The tribune continued: "I too am a Roman, and for that right I had to pay a considerable sum." In that day, there was an extensive industry connected with citizenship papers. But Paul said, emphatically: "Iwas born a Roman citizen." This meant that in addition to citizenship from the city of Tarsus, he also possessed Roman citizenship. Immediately the preparations for the flogging were stopped. The soldiers loosened his chains. This had also struck terror in the tribune's heart, now that he realized that he had had a Roman citizen bound for the purpose of flogging him, something that itself was a violation of his civil rights. When later he gave Paul a letter of introduction to Governor Felix, he cleverly turned what for him had been a troublesome fact into an advantage (23:27).
Paul testifies before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30-23:11)
Meanwhile Claudius Lysias did not know why the hysterical mob had almost torn Paul to pieces. He wanted to know what exactly he was being accused of doing. Apart from a substantive accusation people could not initiate a lawsuit against a Roman citizen. The Sanhedrin had to investigate the matter. The next day, he called together the leading priests and the entire Council. As the highest Roman ruler in Jerusalem, he was authorized to do that. In this case, the Sanhedrin was more than happy to agree, for they might possibly lay their hands on Paul once more. The Council was commandeered not by the Roman official, but by the exalted Lord Jesus. For he wanted the full Council to hear testimony about him one more time.
Claudius Lysias had Paul retrieved from the prison in the Antonia fortress and set him before the Council. Because a Jewish court was not permitted to judge any Roman citizens, this was not a court session, but something like an investigative hearing called by the commander. Paul was now standing before the very same group that had condemned the Lord Jesus and Stephen to death, and that had formerly extended to him his powers as an inquisitor (22:5).
All of this marked this gathering as an historical event. As a favour to Claudius Lysias, the meeting would have been conducted in the Greek language.
Confrontation with the high priest
With the opening salutation, "men, brothers," Paul addressed the members of the council as men and as his equals. As long as God had not taken away the kingdom from them (Matthew 21:43), he acknowledged them as heirs of God's covenant, with all the responsibility that this entailed. Convinced of his own innocence, he looked upon them openly and honestly. He knew what they were thinking about him. In their eyes, he was a declared enemy of God's Law, God's people, and God's temple. How was it possible that a student of Gamaliel had become a student of Jesus, and a church persecutor had become a church founder! How could a Jewish scribe reconcile this in his conscience? In response to all of this, the apostle declared: "I have lived my life"—or: conducted myself as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Ephesians 2:12; Philippians 3:20)—"before God in all good conscience up to this day." With these words he was indirectly summarizing his testimony of the previous day and confirming his preaching that God had raised Jesus and had made him Lord. At the same time, he was implicitly confirming that he was no apostate scribe, but as witness of Jesus Christ, had Moses and the Prophets on his side (Romans 1:2; cf. 3:21). He emphatically declared "Ihave a good conscience." The implied accusation was: "but youhave a bad conscience!"
The apostle had barely begun his defence with these words when the high priest became offended: "Strike him on his mouth!" Given this enraged reaction, we know that he had understood the implication of Paul's assertion. For they had with a show of legality put the Messiah to death, with the help of a betrayer and false witnesses. After that, they had flogged his apostles and killed Stephen. In substance, with his brief reference to his clear conscience, Paul was holding before them the same thing that Stephen had claimed at the end of his lengthy speech (Acts 7:51-53).
With his command to strike Paul on the mouth, as the president of Israel's highest court, Ananias was sweeping Paul's indirect testimony about Jesus' messiahship from the table. No one apparently protested this unethical conduct of the high priest. Only Paul responded: "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit here to judge me according to the law, and you yourself transgress the law by having me struck?" Here we are not listening to any explosion of anger on the part of Paul, but a prophetic declaration. For here an apostle of Jesus Christ was standing before a court. And Jesus had promised that in such cases, the Spirit of the Father would speak in them (Matthew 10:17-20).
Therefore, we assume that Paul was not speaking out of a lost temper, but under the leading of the Holy Spirit he was characterizing the high priest as a whitewashed wall and announcing to him God's judgement. In so doing, he was speaking on the same high level as Ezekiel 13:10-16. There the image of a plastered wall is applied to false prophets, with whom Ananias was a kindred spirit (cf. Matthew 23:27). The wealthy and powerful Ananias was indeed the emblem of a dilapidated wall that looked, thanks to the whitewash and plaster, like a beautiful wall. That is how he was presenting himself here, attempting to look like an impartial judge while being notorious for his greed, arbitrariness, and cruelty. In a prophetic sense, is not such a figure a "whitewashed wall"? When the Jewish Rebellion erupted several years later, he was killed by Jewish freedom fighters because of his Roman sympathies. Thus, Paul's prediction was fulfilled: "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!"
When he said this, however, Paul had evidently not recognized him as the high priest, for in response to the question: "Would you revile God's high priest?" he answered: "I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest." Perhaps Paul was already suffering a decline in his vision (Galatians 6:11). He did not take back the announcement of God's judgement on Ananias. But he did acknowledge that he owed this man honour for the sake of his office: "In Scripture it says, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people'" (Exodus 22:28).
Division within the Council
Did Paul next attempt, by means of a bit of cleverness, to rescue his life by setting his opponents against each other? Perhaps you might get that impression from a superficial reading of verses 6-9. So, what happened? Paul knew that in the Sanhedrin there was a Sadducee faction and a Pharisee faction. In order to clarify for the Council the deepest issue in his case, he cried out: "Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee and a son of Pharisees, and I am on trial on account of the expectation that the dead will rise." He had barely said this when disunity arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
The leadership groups, the high priests, and elders, were Sadducees. They denied the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels and spirits. They also viewed the Law of Moses as the real Word of God. "You are mistaken," Jesus had told them, "because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). By contrast, the Pharisees, most of the scribes, and the ordinary people believed all of this. A loud quarrel arose between both parties. Several Pharisee scribes intervened on Paul's behalf and protested vigorously: "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?"
The quarrel became so intense and the dissension over Paul became so violent that the commander, who had been watching all of this with surprise, was afraid that they would tear him apart. Therefore, he had a group of soldiers take him away and bring him back to the barracks. This was the second time that this Roman officer had saved Paul's life (cf. 21:32-36). With rage the Sadducees noticed that the chance was now lost to condemn and execute this important Christian leader. In the remainder of the book of Acts, they would be Paul's preeminent opponents (cf. v. 14).
No trick, but an attempt to save some Pharisees
Paul's declaration, "I am a Pharisee and stand before you to be judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead," was no clever trick for self-preservation. In this we see a final attempt to bring at least a few Pharisees to faith, if possible. Paul experienced continual pain and sadness on account of Israel's unbelief. Now he was standing for the very last time before the highest assembly of his people. He always addressed them as brothers and brought the gospel first to the synagogue, wherever he went. Would he then not have seized this opportunity to win a few of them for Messiah Jesus? Paul had a very slim basis for conversation with the liberal Sadducees. They rejected Israel's highest faith expectations, and from a human point of view, could not be saved. But all chasms are not equally wide. He shared with the Pharisees some common beliefs. He had broken with the Pharisaic form of law-keeping and with their religious showmanship. But his preaching did fit well with what they were expecting, namely, the resurrection of the dead in the kingdom of the Messiah. Perhaps he would yet be permitted to bring a few of them to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
They all knew the core and basis of his preaching: that God had raised Jesus and had acclaimed him Lord and Messiah in order that he might provide us with forgiveness of sins, renewing of life, and resurrection from the dead. On the preceding day he had testified about Jesus' resurrection (Acts 22:1-21). Perhaps he had spoken about that after his confrontation with the high priest, for it seems that Luke's report about this meeting is quite abbreviated. The question before the Pharisaic members of the Sanhedrin now was this: Did Paul deserve to die because of this preaching? Some of the Pharisee scribes sensed that Paul stood closer to them than did the Sadducees. To condemn him meant in this case that they would in fact be supporting the false teaching of the Sadducees. For that reason, they vigorously argued: "We find nothing wrong in this man! Could it be that a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"
Had Paul brought them closer to the Kingdom by means of his disputed declaration? Would they also enter the kingdom? In this way the issue of Jesus came on the floor once more for the Sanhedrin, confronting them again with the question: Was he, after all, the Messiah risen from the dead, the Saviour of Jews and Gentiles? The man standing before them had testified the previous day that he had heard and seen this Jesus in his heavenly glory on the road to Damascus. Rather than proposing to discuss this in the light of Scripture, Ananias had Paul struck. To the degree that the Council members agreed with this rejection of Jesus' apostle, they rejected once more Jesus' offer of grace, and they came under his word: ". . . the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
Paul is encouraged by the Lord himself
Paul had come very close to being lynched, arrested, and imprisoned three times in two days, to say nothing about the tension and hostility that his comments had generated. So there he sat, all alone in his cell. The Holy Spirit had prepared him, from city to city, for the "chains and persecutions" that awaited him (Acts 20:23; 21:11), but he was a man of flesh and blood, after all, one who experienced fear and trembling (1 Corinthians 2:3).
The Lord Jesus evidently thought it was necessary, after everything that Paul had suffered for him and would yet suffer in the coming years, to encourage him. During that very night he stood suddenly alongside Paul. In a vision, in a dream, or in reality? Paul had seen him more times and recognized him immediately. "Take courage!" the Lord said, "for just as you have testified of me in Jerusalem, so too you must testify of me in Rome." From the barracks steps he was able to tell the crowd a lot about Jesus' glory. Before the Sanhedrin perhaps only a few sentences. But he need not blame himself. All of Jerusalem had heard once more: Jesus, the Nazarene, was raised by God and exalted to heaven as the Saviour of Jews and Gentiles. He would have to give this same testimony later in Rome, according to Jesus.
This was heart-warming news! He longed to proclaim the gospel there as well (Romans 1:10-15; 15:23). But the Lord was promising him no release, nor a pleasurable trip. Nor did he tell him that he would sit in a prison for two years in Caesarea and that he would suffer a shipwreck en route to Rome. He was given to know, however, that under God's protection he would reach Rome and testify of Jesus there. This nocturnal appearance of the Lord must have encouraged him often thereafter.
Questions:
Can you see some instances of God's patience with his people Israel?
If we are never to speak evil of our leaders, how do we discern and challenge false doctrine and/or evil behaviour?
- Alida Sewell
No comments:
Post a Comment