This week's ongoing Biblical study will be part 1 of Acts chapter 23

The Apostle Paul Addresses the Sanhedrin

[Acts chapter 23, verses 1-12]

by Minister Paul J. Bern

 

This week as we continue the apostle Luke's narrative of the apostle Paul's arrival in Jerusalem after a years-long absence from that city, we find Paul in the custody of Roman troops. He has done his best to explain his actions, and particularly how he had found salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. But it was to no avail, and Paul found himself being forcibly removed from that place to keep him from being killed by the angry mob that surrounded him. It is now the following morning, and Paul finds himself being brought before the Sanhedrin to face charges of inciting a riot, and especially facing the ire of his former peers, since Paul was a former member of that Jewish governing body. So let's start this week's lesson there, beginning at verse 1 of chapter 23.

“1) Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, 'My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.' 2) At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3) Then Paul said to him, 'God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!' 4) Those who were standing near Paul said, 'How dare you insult God’s high priest!' 5) Paul replied, 'Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest, for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'”

In verse 1 we see proof of Paul's former membership in the Sanhedrin, as he addressed the entire assembly as “my brothers”. Without skipping a beat, he then does the equivalent of entering a 'not guilty' plea. At this, Ananias the high priest ordered Paul struck by the soldiers closest to him. Now, this is not the same Ananias that baptized Paul in Acts chapter 9, verses 10-19; this is a different man with the same first name. So Paul's former compatriots weren't interested in hearing any pleas from Paul one way or the other. They simply wanted Paul's blood. And, just like with Christ on the cross, they wanted every last drop of Paul's blood too.

In verse 3, Paul's retort to Ananias is based on the Law of Moses, where it is written that no Jew may bring charges or a lawsuit against another Jew, except on the testimony of a minimum of 2 to 3 witnesses. Contrast that with the fact that those who would have testified against him were just as guilty as Paul was for participating in the riot of the previous day, as far as the Romans were concerned. And it was the Romans who were in charge here, as we see in verse 4: “Those who were standing near Paul said, 'How dare you insult God’s high priest!'” 'Who do you think you are, trying to put up a defense and all that?', is pretty much what was being said here. Paul was evidently expected to simply give in with the meekness of Jesus, just like when this same Sanhedrin condemned Jesus.

In verse 5, Paul back-tracks on what he said to Ananias, only to attack them yet again in the following verses: “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest, for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'” In this verse, Paul is quoting Scripture – specifically, Exodus 22: 28. He is giving the Scripture and verse that applies to the apology he is making. Except, it's really not an apology at all. It's just an admission that his statement was out of order, but it was truthful all the same. But then in the following verses, the Spirit of the risen Lord is able to throw the proceedings into chaos through Paul's words.

“6) Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducee's and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.' 7) When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducee's, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducee's say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.) 9) There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. 'We find nothing wrong with this man,' they said. 'What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?' 10) The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.”

As you just read, Paul knew exactly how to play these people off against one another. We have much the same today. I was raised a Catholic, and I remember being taught to never associate with Protestants or Jews as a child back in the 1960's. (I sure am glad I didn't listen to my parents) But in the above passage of scripture, what Paul was faced with was a whole room of people full of people who 'did what they're told', because that's what their parents did, and theirs before that and so on. What you end up with in such situations are groups of people who won't tolerate anyone else's opinions and beliefs. And that is exactly what the Pharisees and Sadduccees were – two groups of bigoted, intolerant individuals. Just like you find in some church denominations today.

Without a doubt you noticed that the Pharisees believed in a resurrection of the dead, but the Sadduccees did not. Now you know why there are no more Sadduccees today, but the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin still exist in modern Israel. Not that I would recommend joining those people. To find out why, go read Matthew chapter 23, all 37 verses of it. You will find that to be in their company is to hang out with the condemned. “....some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. 'We find nothing wrong with this man,'...” That was the thing about Paul – controversy and clashes seemed to follow him everywhere he went. Also, this scene is eerily similar to that of Jesus being put on trial, and Paul had to have known that. In fact, I don't see how he could have missed it.

In verse 10, Paul gets the same treatment from his Roman captors as before – he gets picked up on the shoulders of four soldiers and gets physically carried from the council chambers. So, back to the barracks Paul goes once again. By this point the Roman soldiers and their commander must have been beside themselves over what to do about Paul and all those Gentile Christians he was leading and disciplining. In verses 11 and 12, we see what is going on out of sight of the Roman government and its ruthless enforcers, and I quote: “11) The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, 'Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.' 12) The next morning some Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul.”

So some of the Jewish 'leaders' had already decided to take matters into their own hands, as it says in verse 12. But prior to that in verse 11, the Spirit of the risen Lord already had other plans for Paul. Paul was going to Rome, which confirms what you already suspected – the Jews who wanted to kill Paul were going to be getting very hungry. But how would all this play out, and how would Paul evade the evil clutches of the Sanhedrin? To find out, please rejoin us next week for part 2 of Acts chapter 23. Shalom....