Acts 23
LenskiCHAPTER XXIII
PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN AND HIS TRANSFER TO CAESAREA
Acts 23:1
1We accept the view that the Sanhedrin met in a lower hall in the fortress Antonia and not in its own hall, the lischkath haggasith on the west side of the Temple hill. The soldiers had their παρεμβολή, castra, quarters, on the upper floor from which stairs descended to the level of the Temple court; they occupied only this part of the great castle. In 22:30 the chiliarch takes Paul down; the two of them go alone; in 23:10 he orders his troop down to bring Paul back to the quarters of the soldiers. Neither he nor Paul went to another building.
Paul was not turned over to the Sanhedrin for trial; the chiliarch had no authority for such an act. We find no trace of a trial, no accusers, no charge of a crime, no witnesses, etc. The Sanhedrin is present, but not in formal session. The members have come to learn what the chiliarch desires of them in regard to Paul; and his desire is to discover what is really at the bottom of the previous day’s uproar and the Jewish demand for Paul’s death. By confronting Paul and the Sanhedrin he hopes to find out what is really wrong. This effort proves abortive; it is ill-advised and of a piece with what we have already seen of the chiliarch and his mistakes.
This explains Luke’s account. He presents only two incidents from the undirected proceedings, one from the beginning, Paul’s clash with the high priest (v. 1–5); one from the conclusion, the clash between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin itself (v. 6–10). Whatever else occurred was not worth recording. The chiliarch got nowhere; he should have known that in advance. Having nothing definite to present, all was left to chance from the very beginning.
The language spoken must have been Greek because it was the chiliarch who wanted to know what the trouble was with reference to Paul (22:3). This need cause no surprise, for at the trial of Jesus before Pilate the Sanhedrists had likewise spoken only Greek. We know nothing as to how proceedings began, and as to how Paul was given the floor. The idea that Paul took matters into his own hands cannot be entertained. It is probable that, after entering with Paul at his side, the chiliarch made some preliminary statement. One might suppose that he would have asked the Sanhedrists what they knew about or against this man; but in the case of this erratic chiliarch one cannot be sure.
Some think that it was perfectly in order that Paul should speak first; it certainly was not. All we can say is that after some preliminaries Paul was asked to make a statement.
And Paul, having looked earnestly at the Sanhedrin, said: Men and brethren, on my part I have been conducting myself toward God with all good conscience until this day.
The supposition that Paul had weak eyes or some serious ailment of the eyes has been attached to ἀτενίσας and regards the participle as implying that Paul had to strain his eyes in order to see the Sanhedrists. But in 13:9 and in 14:9 this very same participle is used, yet in those places this weakness of the eyes is not stressed by these commentators. Besides, no one thinks of this when this participle is used with reference to other persons. Paul had not seen the Sanhedrin for many years, not since they had appointed him inquisitor-in-chief and head persecutor of the Christians. He would naturally now scrutinize the present personnel with special interest, being confronted by this body as he now was. The assumption that at one time he himself was a member of the Sanhedrin is unfounded. If he had been, that fact would be of such importance as to necessitate repeated mention, especially in Acts and in 2 Cor. 11:22.
It is notable that Paul addresses the Sanhedrists as “men and brethren” (see 1:16) and does not add “fathers” as he did in 22:1. He speaks to them as being only fellow Jews, fellow nationalists who believe in the same God of Israel. We confess that we see a great deal in this informal address. If these Sanhedrists are important personages, so is Paul. The apostle is conscious of his own high standing. The very character of the man naturally appears great and impressive.
There is another thing that seems to be implied in this address, namely that this was not a formal session of the Sanhedrin. It is generally thought to be just that: all are seated in their own hall on the platform reserved for them, the high priest is in his regular place, there are scribes to take down the proceedings, attendant ὑπηρέται to execute orders—the whole court is in official session. This picture is unwarranted. The hall of meeting is in the castle Antonia, the gathering is informal, “men and brethren” is the form of address for a gathering and not for a formal court in session, secretaries and attendants are absent. Luke’s entire account reflects this situation.
The meeting was called in order to enlighten the chiliarch in regard to Paul and in regard to anything of a criminal nature chargeable against him as expressed in yesterday’s riotous demand for his death; hence the emphatic ἐγώ introducing Paul’s declaration of innocence. So also “with all good conscience” is placed emphatically forward. A second emphasis rests on the final phrase “until this day.” The verb πολιτεύομαι is commonly used in regard to the conduct of a citizen or of an official, and when it is used in a broader sense it still retains much of this idea. Here the perfect tense with the dative τῷΘεῷ means: “I have been conducting myself toward God” (dative of relation), the tense already implying what the added phrase “until this day” emphasizes. The force is: “This is the kind of a man now before you.” Paul is referring to the charges made yesterday (21:28), especially to the crowning one that he brought some Gentile into the forbidden Temple precincts. Over against these charges he puts the emphatic declaration that his conscience is clear regarding his conduct toward God and all that pertains to God.
The translation of our versions, “I have lived,” has led some to think that Paul is speaking of his entire life, as a Jew as well as a Christian, as a bloody persecutor and as a chosen apostle. They then apply the good conscience to this entire career and show that a man may rage against the church with a good conscience as well as work with might and main for its upbuilding. Then the verb is stressed, namely that Paul lived “as God’s citizen, as a member of God’s commonwealth,” although the idea of such a πόλις and such a citizenship is admittedly Greek and Roman and not Jewish although Paul is speaking to Jews. With these ideas another is associated, namely that Paul is summing up his whole address to the rioters of the day before. Underlying it all is the idea that anything Paul may say at any time, and anything anywhere recorded in Scripture, must have a most profound meaning. But the Scriptures were written for men generally in order that all might understand.
Paul’s simple statement about himself is devoid of profundities. When the Jews crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, sent Paul to his frightful work, “good conscience” was openly, viciously violated. They plotted murder, used a traitor, suborned perjured witnesses, lied, hated, shed innocent blood, committed crime after crime—all with seared consciences. They trampled on the most elementary divine as well as human law. The whole world has ever so testified. Paul had his own awful share in it all. It is unwarranted to let Paul now cover all that with the cloak of a good conscience.
That perfect tense covers the charges preferred in 21:28. Paul’s conduct has not been hostile to the people (the λαός, Israel), to the law (the νόμος, the divine Torah), nor to this place (God’s Temple); in particular, he never dreamed of taking a Gentile such as Trophimus into the forbidden courts. By appealing to his conscience regarding these charges and naming God as its arbiter Paul does what Luther did at Worms: he had examined his conduct before God, he had found his conscience clear but invites any who think his conduct wrong to point out the wrong before God in order that his conscience may condemn him by admitting the guilt. That is the true use of conscience. It is always subject to God and, when it is mistaken, it is always instantly ready to bow to God when the mistake in conduct is pointed out.
We think that Paul speaks only regarding himself. Others have thought that his reference to “all good conscience toward God” intended to strike these Sanhedrists and to intimate to them that they could not say this for themselves. The implication: “Show me before God where my conscience has been and now is wrong!” seems sufficient here.
Acts 23:2
2But the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to smite his mouth.
This is not the Ananias who is called high priest in the Gospels and in Acts 4:7, but the son of Nebedaeus who was nominated by Herod, King of Chalcis, and held this office from 48–59. He was accused of rapine and cruelty by the Samaritans and in 52 had to go to Rome to defend himself. He was killed by the sicarii. Josephus, Ant. 20, 5, 2; 6, 2; Wars 2, 12, 6; 17, 9. His order to strike Paul on the mouth is typical of the violent character of the man. The Sadducees were notorious for their arrogant manners even toward their colleagues (we have a sample in John 11:49).
Those standing by were other Sanhedrists. Those who think of a formal session in which all the Sanhedrists were duly seated think “those standing by” were the attendants of the Sanhedrin. But these would be designated as ὑπηρέται and never as “those standing by.” Paul was not turned over to the Sanhedrin and its police. The meeting was wholly informal, and many of the members were standing about in the hall.
The ugly act of Ananias’ was wholly unprovoked, nasty and mean, and senseless into the bargain. The Sanhedrists were not servants who were to be ordered about. This high priest was in part asserting his authority for the benefit of the chiliarch, a mere subaltern, who had made bold to summon him, the exalted high priest, and the Sanhedrin. The high priest resented Paul’s unabashed, manly bearing. This fellow Paul should have cringed and quavered; instead he presumed to speak of his good conscience and blameless conduct even in the very presence of his majesty, the high priest. Did someone strike Paul?
We do not think so; some interpreters do. Of course, zealous police attendants would have leaped to execute the mighty one’s order, but no such fellows were at hand. The chiliarch should have interfered at this point; a Roman could not be struck. Due to his usual brevity Luke does not report the chiliarch’s reaction. If Paul had been struck, the chiliarch would probably have acted, and Luke would have had something to say about this.
Acts 23:3
3Then Paul said to him: Smite thee shall God, thou whitewashed wall! And thou, dost thou sit judging me according to the law and acting contrary to law orderest me to be smitten?
Ananias was facing the wrong man. The chiliarch might hesitate, but not so Paul. Instantly he turns to the arrogant fellow, his words charged with outraged anger. For ourselves let us say that Ananias got exactly what he deserved. Paul’s ready reply is straight and stunning. The Greek is far more telling than the translation of our versions. The key word is placed forward with the fullest emphasis: “Smite thee shall God, thou whitewashed wall!” literally, “God is about” to do that very thing to thee. The perfect participle has its usual present connotation (like the verb in v. 1): still covered with whitewash. An ugly wall smeared over with whitewash pictures a hypocrite; Jesus used the same word in a similar figure and in the same sense in his denounciation in Matt. 23:27.
As Jesus did when he uttered his invectives, Paul proved the hypocrisy. “Thou” is emphatic; the structure is chiastic and more telling for this reason: the verbs are placed outside, the participles inside, and “to be smitten” is emphatically at the end. The word order of the entire reply is perfect Greek. The contrast between “judging according to the law” and “acting contrary to law” is intense because of the juxtaposition. Here was a fellow who was pretending to be a judge, to obey the supreme obligation of a judge, which is to follow the law and at the very beginning in his judge’s seat he violates all law by the lawless order to strike Paul in the face. Surely, that went home. “Thou sittest judging” has been stressed to support the idea of a formal judicial session of the Sanhedrin, but the word need not have that implication. No chiliarch dared to turn a Roman over even to the Sanhedrin for trial.
Some were standing, others were sitting, one of these was the high priest. The judgment the chiliarch desired to secure was not a legal verdict, but he hoped to learn something that might serve as a legal charge because it was preferred by responsible accusers. Paul’s words imply no more. The very retort Paul made would have been impossible at a formal trial.
Acts 23:4
4But those standing near said, The high priest of God dost thou revile? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is high priest. For it has been written, Of the ruler of thy people thou shalt not speak basely.
Here “those standing near” are again mentioned. No mere police attendants would venture to remonstrate with a defendant who was on trial before a supreme court. These were the Sanhedrists who were standing near Paul. They reprove him for the language he used toward the high priest. “Of God” points to the office as having been instituted by God himself. Even then they venture only to ask a question.
Acts 23:5
5Paul promptly acknowledges his fault. This consists in the fact that he had spoken ill against the ruler of his people in ignorance. He had inadvertently sinned against an office. He makes this prompt acknowledgment on the basis of Exod. 22:28 (LXX). Even when a ruler does wrong, he must not be cursed because of his office, the LXX has the milder term. Ἐρεῖς is the future tense which is used in commands (from λέγω), here it is construed with the accusative. Paul says in effect that, if he had known that it was the high priest, he would have quietly borne the mean insult and committed the matter to God.
This obvious sense of Paul’s reply has not satisfied all of the commentators. Paul’s eyesight is introduced as a reason. Some attribute his weakness of the eyes to the blazing light on the road to Damascus as though the Lord had not fully restored Paul’s sight! There is also the surmise that Ananias was not wearing his official robes or was not in his official seat. But he wore those robes only when he officiated, and at this meeting there was no official seat, the meeting being informal, being held in a hall in the castle. Again, Paul did not notice who it was that gave the order to smite him on the mouth. Irony is suggested: “I could not think that a man who gave such an order was really a high priest!” The climax is the claim that Luke recorded Paul as lying.
All these views are based on the assumption that Paul knew Ananias, knew that this individual was the high priest, from the seat he occupied, from his dress, from the preliminaries at this meeting, from something else. Yet Paul himself declares that he did not know him, the tense (the past perfect ᾔδειν is invariably used as imperfect) stating that he had not known him all along. The supposition that Ananias was not rightfully high priest at this time, was usurping the office, holding it temporarily, is contrary to the historical facts. So also is the claim that someone else presided. No one presides at an informal meeting, and no one did so here.
The casuistic efforts to clear Paul of all fault are untenable; Paul admits such fault as there was. The action of the Sanhedrists who reprove Paul reveals how men like the Pharisees could remain in office in the Sanhedrin under Sadducaic high priests such as Caiaphas and this wretched Ananias.
Acts 23:6
6After having sketched a scene from the beginning of the meeting arranged by the chiliarch, Luke shows how the meeting came to an end. The wording plainly indicates that there was an interval between v. 5 and 6. We accept that fact and therefore do not try to link these two verses together. Some do this even in quite opposite ways. Paul’s acknowledgment is said to have satisfied the party of the high priest, and this made Paul try to win also the Pharisees; but again, Paul saw that he had lost out with the high priest and the Sadducees and so turned to the Pharisees as his only hope. These two views rather cancel each other.
Now Paul, on coming to realize that the one part consisted of Sadducees and the other of Pharisees, went on to shout in the Sanhedrin, Men and brethren, I myself am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Having said this, there occurred a commotion of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the crowd was divided. For the Sadducees declare there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.
Since Paul had always known that the Sanhedrin was made up of both Sadducees and Pharisees, Luke’s remark that is introduced with γνούς must mean more than that Paul happened to think of these two parties and with quick wit took advantage of that fact and thus caused a division in the Sanhedrin. Something that is not recorded by Luke but is contained in the participle γνούς, etc., had set the two parties against each other. This seems to be substantiated by ἔκραζενἐντῷσυνεδρίῳ; Paul had to shout (descriptive imperfect) at the top of his voice. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were evidently engaged in a loud altercation, and Paul was quite forgotten for the moment.
These points are clear; everything that goes beyond them is guessing, some of it is unsatisfactory, for instance that the altercation took place in regard to the high priest, and that the Pharisees were rather pleased with Paul’s sharp retort, or that Paul’s address, “men and brethren,” was intended to ignore the high priest in a pointed way. Regarding the latter, what about the same address in v. 1; and what about attributing such a low motive to a man like Paul? Luke writes, “in the Sanhedrin,” yet some think that Paul was addressing only the Pharisees. The entire Sanhedrin was to know that Paul was a Pharisee. The force of the argument was this: a judicial body that was itself in large part composed of Pharisees could certainly not find fault with a man for being a Pharisee and holding to the main doctrinal contention of Pharisaism. This feature of the argument would, of course, have been just as strong if matters had been reversed, i. e., if Paul had been a Sadducee. In either case the one party would not, the other could not take exception.
“I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees,” descended from Pharisee ancestry, intends to say, “a genuine Pharisee.” In this very Sanhedrin Gamaliel had sat, a Pharisee, one of the great ornaments of Judaism (5:34), under whom Paul himself had received his education (22:3). If Paul had stopped with this, the casuists might arise and charge him with falsehood or at least with equivocation. But he at once adds in what respect he is a genuine Pharisee, namely for holding to the “hope and resurrection of men dead,” Totenauferstehung. There are no articles in the Greek, hence both terms are used in their broad sense. We may regard the expression as a hendiadys: “hope of resurrection.” The fact that this hope involved belief in angels and in spirits, and that Paul, of course, included both in his present confession, we see in a moment. All that we must add here is that any man who has a conviction such as this, especially if he be a Jew, is properly classed with the Pharisees, the outstanding exponents of this conviction.
To this day we call those who reject the resurrection “modern Sadducees” although in other respects they may differ entirely from the ancient Sadducees. It is true, today “Pharisee” has come to designate another mark of this ancient sect; it now signifies a formalist or a hypocrite; but this is a late development in the use of the word. There in the Sanhedrin every man understood Paul’s declaration exactly as he intended it: he was in no sense a Sadducee, he was a Pharisee who held to the hope of the resurrection which was defended by all Pharisees against all Sadducees. We are such Pharisees to this day.
More must be added. This hope of the resurrection was the ancient faith of Israel. The claim of the modern Sadducees that the Old Testament was not acquainted with this faith is refuted by Abraham who believed that God could raise his son Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:9). The Old Testament is rich in similar proof. The Pharisees were genuinely Biblical in regard to this doctrine, and this Jewish sect dates back to the days of the return from the Babylonian exile. Furthermore, the resurrection was the central doctrine of the apostolic gospel (2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:28; 13:30, 34; 1 Cor. 15:4–20).
It was so essential because of the resurrection of Jesus as the Christ. Jesus proclaimed his own resurrection (John 2:18–22; Matt. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), promised to raise up all the dead (John 5:25), especially his believers (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54), rose as promised, and gave his chosen witnesses “many infallible proofs” thereof (Acts 1:3). The folly of the Sadducees in denying the resurrection is exposed in Matt. 22:23, etc. Gamaliel himself threw cold water on the Sanhedrin’s readiness to slay the apostles for preaching the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 5:33, etc.). The Christian teaching of the resurrection drew many Pharisees to the faith; we note some of them in 15:5.
Before a body that was composed in part of so many Pharisees Paul says, “I am called in question,” I on the matter of the resurrection, the one great thing which makes me, too, a Pharisee. That was certainly preposterous. We may translate κρίνομαι, “I am being judged,” but even then the Sanhedrin is now not in a court session in a trial of Paul. The following verses answer that assumption. Called together to furnish the chiliarch enlightenment in regard to why Paul’s death was so violently called for on the previous day, Paul himself tells both the Sanhedrin and the chiliarch what the trouble is regarding him: like the Pharisees, he holds to the hope of the resurrection. Paul was providentially led to make this declaration by something that had once more made evident the opposition that existed between the two sects represented in the Sanhedrin.
The charges preferred on the preceding day (21:28) had practically declared that Paul was guilty of teaching a false, a new religion that was subversive of the λαός (Israel), the law (the Old Testament), and the Temple (of what it stood for). Here in the Sanhedrin itself came this opening which enables Paul to declare that the very central part of his teaching constituted what Israel, the Old Testament, and the Temple Stood for as every Pharisee knew and maintained, the hope of the blessed resurrection.
Various opinions have been held in regard to Paul’s act. Was he really a Pharisee as he declares? See what he says to the Christian Philippians among whom there were scarcely any former Jews, Phil. 3:5. The whole Sanhedrin knew him to be a Christian (24:5). Deception is completely ruled out. Was Paul shrewd and cunning to “divide and conquer”? Did he follow the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means? The answer is that the two parties of the Sanhedrin clashed before him in some way that led him to cry out as he did.
Acts 23:7
7We see this when Luke states that, after Paul had said this, a στάσις, a “commotion” (in 19:40 we translate “riot”) occurred “of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” two genitives and only one article, which regards both as one body (R. 787). Our versions are inaccurate. This was not a “dissension between” the two but a joint commotion. This riotous proceeding was, of course, due to the division of the parties, but Luke states this separately.
Acts 23:8
8Luke explains to his reader (γάρ) that the Sadducees maintain (λέγουσι) that there is no resurrection and, consistent with this, that there is also no angel nor spirit. They held that no spirit exists save God; that the human soul consisted of rarified matter and disappeared with the body (συναφανίσαι); that God is not concerned with our doing or not doing evil, and that each man may do as he pleases; that death ends everything without reward or punishment hereafter. Josephus, Wars 2, 8, 14 adds that their treatment even of each other was wild and barbarous; see also Ant. 18, 1, 4. A lurid light is thus cast on this ruling faction among the Jews, which embodied the high priesthood itself. While Sadducees and Pharisees combined against Christ and Christianity, they were at sword’s point among themselves. This strong opposition broke out at this time.
Paul had not caused the clash as already stated. Chrysostom speaks of three points of difference, and it is now recognized that ἀμφότερα is freely used with reference to more than two, in 19:16 with reference to as many as seven.
Acts 23:9
9And there occurred a great clamor. And some of the scribes of the party of the Pharisees, having arisen, began to battle fiercely, saying: Nothing base do we find in this man! But if a spirit did speak to him or an angel—? And when the commotion became great, the chiliarch, afraid lest Paul be torn in two by them, ordered the military down to snatch him out of their midst and to bring him into the castle.
This is not a court scene. Nor is it possible that a proper court session should terminate as here described. At the trial of Jesus a horrible scene was enacted (Matt. 26:67) but not until the court session had pronounced its death verdict and had adjourned. Here no court is convened. Most of the Sanhedrists never even sat down. We are able to discover no trace of formality anywhere.
Κραυγή is the word to express a roar of voices as when the spectators at a college football game cheer their side on to victory. This was an exhibition, indeed: the highest dignitaries of Judaism surging in a mass, wildly gesticulating and shouting at each other in the most frantic Oriental fashion. The circumstantial participle ἀναστάντες has nothing to do with getting up from seats; it is exceedingly common as introducing many kinds of action. Here these scribes “started up” to fight the Sadducees with their shouts. All were at it, but Luke has preserved only the shouts of “some of the scribes of the party of the Pharisees.” One of the regular names for the Sanhedrin was “the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.” These last named were graduates of the rabbinical schools who were learned in the law, “lawyers” in that sense of the word. The most eminent were made members of the Sanhedrin; Gamaliel had been one of these.
Most of them were Pharisees. They functioned especially when questions regarding the interpretation of points in the Torah arose. Some of them now went into strenuous action because they felt that they were the ones who were most entitled to speak.
The imperfect is inchoative and, of course, also descriptive: “they began to battle fiercely (διά).” Two of their shouts were: they found nothing bad or base (κακόν) in Paul, and a spirit might have spoken to him. Yet we should be wrong to conclude that these scribes of the Pharisees were greatly concerned about Paul; they were defeating the Sadducees, and in that battle Paul was only a pawn. It would not do to bank too strongly on their verdict that they find nothing wrong with Paul.
Interesting is the aposiopesis, deliberate suppression of a part of a sentence: “But if a spirit did speak to him or angel—?” i. e., what about it? This was a direct challenge to the Sadducees who believed in neither. This may have been prompted by Paul’s recital on the previous day (22:6, etc.). The word “spirit” is more indefinite, “angel” more definite. The Holy Spirit cannot be referred to because the Sadducees were not disbelievers in God; throughout the Gospels no Jew ever took exception to a mention of the Holy Spirit. Some Pharisees became converts, but we know of no Sadducees that were converted.
Acts 23:10
10Πολλῆς is predicative and not attributive (our versions). The commotion rose to such a pitch that the chiliarch became frightened lest they tear Paul to pieces: the Sadducees were enraged at Paul, the Pharisees were trying to shield him from attack. The chiliarch promptly called up to the military force on the floor above, where they were in barracks, to snatch Paul out of the seething mass and to be taking him into their castra or military quarters. The first infinitive is properly aorist, the second present. Στράτευμα is not “soldiers” but the military, any part of the garrison; and the aorist neuter participle καταβάν = “having come down.” It ought to be understood that the chiliarch had no soldiers with him; he and Paul had gone down to the meeting alone. The chiliarch did not rush out to the fortress to get soldiers; all he did was to shout his command at the door of the lower hall to the force on the upper floor. Luke makes this so plain that one wonders why some fail to understand him (see v. 1).
After Paul and the chiliarch had left, the Sanhedrists could fight on as long as they pleased. The pagan chiliarch must have been edified by the exhibition he had witnessed. But the chiliarch had gained nothing by his attempt at a meeting with the Sanhedrin; in fact, he was more in the dark than ever about this Roman who somehow made both the Jewish populace and the Sanhedrin go wild by his presence.
Acts 23:11
11Up to this time Paul had had only the divine intimation that he would be bound (a prisoner) and placed into the hands of Gentiles in Jerusalem, and this prophecy had been fulfilled. Now further light falls on his path.
Now on the following night the Lord, having stepped up to him, said: Continue to be of good cheer! For as thou didst testify the things concerning me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for thee to testify also in Rome.
The present imperative need not imply that Paul was downhearted. It was not because “Paul never needed Jesus more than now” that the Lord appeared to him, ἐπιστάς, came suddenly upon him. This was only the second night of his confinement, and he was the last man to lose courage quickly. The Lord is now adding more light of prophecy and doing so not through others but in his own person. The imperative θάρσει, “continue to be of good cheer (comfort, courage),” looks forward to the long imprisonment ahead of Paul. A spirit, as full of energy as his, might not hold up under such long inactivity as the weary months dragged along, and the clouds did not once lift. The Lord is fortifying him in advance for that. He would very often lean on what the Lord himself now reveals to him.
The commendation of his past testimony in Jerusalem should not be overlooked That address from the castle steps and that declaration before the Sanhedrists have the Lord’s full approval. Both were made under trying circumstances, and Paul is to know that he has made no mistakes, and is not to tell himself that, perhaps, if he had acted otherwise he would not find himself in confinement for so long a time. This was comfort. But far more. “It is necessary” for the Lord’s own plans regarding Paul that his wish and desire to testify also in Rome be fulfilled (see 19:21; and compare Rom. 1:10–15 which was written in Corinth before this journey to Jerusalem). Paul will not go to Rome in the way he had hoped to go; he will be taken there as a prisoner. But he will testify in Rome (effective aorist)—the very thing for which he wanted to get to Rome. The two εἰς are static, R. 593.
Here the great theme of Acts is brought out clearly. The center of the great gospel work is to be transferred from Jerusalem to Rome. We are in the year 58, in May, just after Pentecost; in 66 the war would begin that would end in the destruction of Jerusalem and the abolition of the Jews as a nation. The time was getting brief during which Jerusalem would continue to figure as the center of Christendom.
The most important thing is the Lord’s statement that Paul is to testify in Rome the things he had testified in Jerusalem. Not as Paul had testified in Gentile lands to Gentiles, where he had labored so long, but as he had testified in Jerusalem to Jews. The point of this statement is the fact that a great work is awaiting Paul in Rome, a work not among the Gentiles in Rome but among the host of Jews in Rome, among whom no gospel work had as yet been done. There were eleven large Jewish synagogues in Rome. The Christians in Rome had left these synagogues entirely alone. The Lord is now appointing Paul to convey the gospel to all these Roman Jews.
This is precisely what Paul did immediately on reaching Rome. See Luke’s account in 28:17, etc. For two years Paul pursued this task among the Jews in Rome. He converted at least four or five of the synagogues in Rome. To this great body of converted Jews in Rome the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed. See the full details in the Introduction to Hebrews.
Acts 23:12
12But when day came, the Jews, having made a compact, put themselves under a curse, declaring neither to eat nor to drink until they should kill Paul. Moreover, they were more than forty who made for themselves this sworn plot, who, having come to the high priests and elders, said: With a curse we did put ourselves under a curse to taste nothing until we shall kill Paul. Now, therefore, do you on your part with the Sanhedrin inform the chiliarch that he should bring him down to you as being about to decide more accurately the matters concerning him; but we on our part, before he gets near, are ready to make away with him.
One is astounded at the open criminality of the Jews. One high priest after another, Sanhedrists, and a large number of others become guilty of it. Read Josephus in regard to this period, he has much more to report. A συατροφή is a compact, and συνωμοσία is a sworn pact, Verschwoerung. To place oneself under a curse not to eat or to drink (effective aorist infinitives) is to promise under oath not to do either, and that God’s curse may strike those who fail to carry out the promise. This was similar to a vow with a curse for non-fulfillment. “Until they should kill Paul” (R. 974, etc.) marks the limit to which they swore to fast.
If they should fail to kill him according to the terms of their oath they would starve to death. It was to be his death by murder or their own death by voluntary starvation. But what is the oath of deliberate murderers worth? This self-anathematization sounds awful, but the rabbis could dissolve the cherem, Hebrew for ἀνάθεμα. None of these men starved to death. By their murderous oath they only brought God into their crime, so accursed were they.
Acts 23:13
13Forty had entered upon this “swearing together,” a number that was large enough to insure success if their cunning scheme to get Paul out of the custody of the soldiers succeeded.
Acts 23:14
14But they needed to have the cooperation of “the high priests and the elders.” The former were Ananias and those of high priestly connection in the Sanhedrin, all of them Sadducees, of course; see 4:5, 6 for “the high priests” at the time of Caiaphas. “The elders” might include all the rest of the Sanhedrists; but this cannot be the case here, for the Pharisees mentioned in v. 9 would not dare to learn about the plot. We conclude that at first a few of the leaders were approached by the conspirators who then confided in those whom they could trust to keep secret their scheme. This is stated outright just as though these murderous fellows knew what kind of men their great religious leaders were. The Hebraistic “with an anathema we did anathematize ourselves,” the dative for the Hebrew infinitive absolute, means: “we have most solemnly sworn,” R. 531. We must notice the difference between ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα, the former denoting something devoted to God for destruction (hence “a curse”), the latter something devoted to God as a gift (hence “a votive offering,” Luke 21:5). Verbs of tasting govern the genitive.
Acts 23:15
15These Sanhedrists are to induce the entire Sanhedrin to inform the chiliarch “in order that he may bring Paul down to you” (purpose clause), and ὑμᾶς is modified by the following participle: “as about to decide more accurately the matters concerning him,” τὰπερὶαὑτοῦ. The addition of ὡς indicates the ostensible reason; the real reason was far otherwise. It is worth noting that διαγινώσκειν never means, “to make a judicial investigation or to render a judicial decision,” C.-K. 251; nor would “more accurate” fit that idea. The Sanhedrin had no power to try Paul. We have shown that in v. 1–10 there is no evidence that a trial was held. Paul was under Roman authority.
The chiliarch had called in the Sanhedrin in order to get data in regard to any crime Paul might have committed; it is to this procedure that the verb refers: “to decide for the benefit of the chiliarch more accurately these matters regarding Paul.” The idea was to let the chiliarch know that the Sanhedrin was now in a better position than it had been on the day before to procure the desired information for him. Of course, it would be necessary for him “to bring down” Paul as the Sanhedrin would have need of him.
What this bringing down implies is indicated by the promise that, before Paul gets near (aorist) to the Sanhedrin, these conspirators are prepared to make away with him, the very verb that was noted as being so significant in 22:20. This time the Sanhedrists would be approaching the chiliarch, and not he them. On his invitation they came to him; now on theirs he would naturally come to them. The first meeting was held in the lower hall of the fortress, on the upper floor of which were the quarters of the soldiers; this proposed meeting was to be held in the hall of the Sanhedrin itself (see v. 1). Paul would have to be conducted across the Temple court, and even if a few soldiers were with him as a guard, forty resolute Jews, armed with daggers, would soon do away with Paul. These forty did not belong to the infamous sicarii, assassins, that Jewish scourge which helped to bring on the war, one of whose victims Ananias himself became (see v. 2); but they intended to operate in the same way with daggers concealed under their cloaks, getting close to their intended victim and then suddenly rushing in and murdering him.
What a horrible plot, and these leading Sanhedrists were party to it! Hate blinds utterly. Suppose that Paul had been put to death in this way, was there not a danger that the chiliarch himself might be stabbed in the mêlée?
Acts 23:16
16But the son of Paul’s sister having heard of the ambush, after drawing near and going into the castle, made report to Paul. And Paul, having called to himself one of the centurions, said, Take this young man away to the chiliarch; for he has something to report to him. Accordingly he, having taken him, brought him to the chiliarch and said, The prisoner Paul, having called me to him, requested that this young man be brought to thee as having something to tell thee.
“The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee,” Burns. Providence thwarted the plot of the conspirators in the most simple way. Providence has a way of doing such things.
So Paul has a sister, and she has a son who is already a νεανίας, a young man between twenty and forty. That is all that we actually know. Guesses are, of course, built up about these meager facts: this sister was much older than Paul who had lived at her house in Jerusalem when he studied under Gamaliel, and this nephew was now studying under this same teacher and thus learned of the plot. Others think that the sister lived in Tarsus, but that her son had come to Jerusalem in order to study there. So also we have no intimation as to how the young man heard about the plot. The accusative is used to designate what one hears.
Whether he himself was a Christian or not, he certainly was concerned about his uncle’s imprisonment and what the Jews were doing about it. The moment he discovers the dastardly plot he goes to warn Paul.
Luke’s description is detailed and graphic and delightful to read. Hence he doubles the participles, “coming near and going into the castra,” the soldiers’ quarters in Antonia. That first participle refers to the outer guard or sentries who had to be approached first. It cannot be construed with the preceding as explaining how he came to hear of the plot: “having come upon them” (R., W. P.); for then it ought to precede ἀκούσας, and the preposition used should be ἐπί and not παρά. As a nephew of the prisoner, a harmless young man at that, he had no difficulty in being admitted to see Paul.
Acts 23:17
17Paul was in charge of one of the centurions; 21:32 shows that there were several. His request that the young man be taken to the chiliarch naturally met with no difficulty since Paul was a Roman.
Acts 23:18
18Luke even records the centurion’s report to his superior officer. Ὁδέσμιος is a noun, “the prisoner.” This term refers to anyone who is in confinement. The supposition that the word means “bound to a soldier,” whether by one or by two chains, is unwarranted. In 22:29 the chiliarch was frightened to discover that he had put fetters upon a Roman; see 22:30 on this point. Paul was in military custody, and not even a crime had as yet been charged against him. The centurion states the facts of Paul’s request in exact military fashion.
Acts 23:19
19And the chiliarch, having taken him by his hand and having withdrawn in private, began to inquire, What is it that thou hast to report to me? And he said: The Jews did agree to make request of thee in order that thou shalt bring down Paul to the Sanhedrin as desiring to inquire something more accurately concerning him. Do not thou, therefore, be persuaded by them; for some of their men, more than forty, are in ambush, such as did put themselves under a curse neither to eat nor to drink until they shall make away with him. And they are ready now, expecting the promise from thee.
The young man was a bit frightened to appear before the chiliarch himself. In order to reassure him the chiliarch takes hold of his hand in kindly, paternal fashion and withdraws with him in private, κατʼ ἰδίαν, a set phrase. When the two are by themselves, he starts to inquire (inchoative) about what the young man has to report. Several questions were probably required, but Luke condenses the whole information. We cannot construe “asked him privately” (R. V.), for the prepositional phrase would then come before the verb and thus be emphatic, which it cannot be; “went aside privately” (A. V.) is correct, the phrase coming after the participle and being unemphatic.
Acts 23:20
20In the young man’s report the simple plural “the Jews did agree” is not intended to refer to the whole nation; as in v. 12, this is common speech even to this day. Ὅπως is again final (v. 15); the request has this purpose; ἵνα would not do here, for this might refer to what is requested. We have already explained what leading down into the Sanhedrin means (v. 15), and how this was vital for the plot. Here the young man says μέλλων, the singular, as though the plea (ὡς) was that the chiliarch would want to know “something more accurate” about Paul, while in v. 15 the plural predicates this of the Sanhedrists. Both are true, either one or both pleas could be put forward. The masculine μέλλων is not intended to refer to the neuter “Sanhedrin,” an anacoluthic substitute for the neuter μέλλον.
Acts 23:21
21When the young man tells the chiliarch not to be persuaded by them (the Sanhedrists; aorist subjunctive in negative commands) he innocently voices his own great fear that the chiliarch might yield to the persuasion (aorist to express committing a single act) and is certainly not giving directions to this chief commander. He just begs him not to yield. With γάρ he explains the whole story as we already know it from Luke’s account and adds only that the conspirators are now expecting to get the chiliarch’s promise regarding the next day.
Acts 23:22
22Accordingly the chiliarch let the young man go, having charged him to divulge to no one that thou didst give information on these things to me.
Οὗν refers to all that the young man had told. The infinitive after παραγγείλας is indirect discourse, while the ὅτι clause after ἐκλαλῆσαι is direct discourse; but this is not a mixture of oratio obliqua et recta (B.-D. 470, 2; R. 442, 1047) for the obvious reason that each oratio has its owns governing verb; in a real mixture both the direct and the indirect oration follow one verb of saying. Paul’s nephew is not to breathe a word about what he has done. To do so would probably cost him his own life, and the chiliarch may have thought of that; but the chiliarch certainly also wanted completely to veil his own action.
Acts 23:23
23And having called to himself certain two of the centurions, he said: Make ready two hundred soldiers in order that they may march to Caesarea and seventy cavalrymen and two hundred slingers, from the third hour of the night; and to provide beasts in order that, having mounted Paul, they might bring him safely to Felix, the governor—having written a letter having this form.
The more we read about this chiliarch, the less we think of him. Here he orders out a small army, and that during the night, in order to transfer Paul the distance of seventy miles to Caesarea. With so large a force he could at once have taken Paul away; and for a swift, secret journey by night a small troup of cavalry would have been the proper thing and not a lot of heavy infantry. These remarks are made by a non-military man, but they must stand, nevertheless. The analogy of εἶτις makes it certain that δύοτινάς (some reverse the words) does not mean “some two,” no choice being made (R., W. P.), but as R. 742 has it: “certain two” or “two certain ones” who were specially selected, B.-D. 301, 1.
These two centurions are to have the troops ready to start the march (aorist) at nine o’clock that night, ἀπό, from that “third hour of the night” on. The night starts at 6 P. M.; the day at 6 A. M., according to Roman reckoning.
It is agreed that the στρατιῶται are hoplites, heavy armed infantry of the line or legionaries, and the ἱππεῖς the regular Roman cavalry. But nobody knows anything certain about the δεξιολάβοι, a word that is not found again except once in the seventh and again in the tenth century. See Meyer’s discussion. The word says that they took something in their right hands. Our versions guess “spearmen,” taking their cue from the Vulgate “lancers.” Our guess is “slingers.” It is agreed that they were afoot.
Acts 23:24
24Here the oratio is mixed. It changes from the direct to the indirect after the one verb εἶπεν. The centurions are to have “beasts” ready in order to place Paul upon them and thus bring him safely through to Felix who is here called “the governor,” thus indicating his office by a general term. We think these beasts were asses because anybody can ride them and almost everybody uses them in Palestine, and because we do not think Paul could have managed a horse, and all he had to do was to travel as rapidly as the infantry. Having ourselves ridden asses in the Orient and seen them used there, we venture this opinion. Some think of baggage, Paul’s belongings, because of the plural “beasts”; we have our doubts about the baggage. A change of animals was required for Paul.
Felix was powerful and unprincipled. He and his brother Pallas were originally slaves and then became freedmen in the house of a noble Roman lady, Antonia, the mother of Claudius. Pallas became the favorite and the minister of the emperor and in 52 secured the post of procurator of Judea for his brother. Since he was supported by his brother, Felix felt that he could do any wrong he chose. Tacitus writes: “With all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave.” Suetonius reports that he had three wives in succession: Drusilla, princess of Mauritania; another Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I and sister of Herod Agrippa II, who left her first husband; the third is unknown. Felix ruled seven or eight years Until he was recalled by Nero in 60. He lost his position when Pallas was put to death in 63.
Acts 23:25
25The Greek can continue with a nominative participle which is dependent on εἶπε in v. 23. This construction cannot be imitated in English, so our versions begin a new sentence. Roman law required an elogium, a written statement, when a subordinate referred a case to his superior, and this the chiliarch was now providing. It really makes no difference whether this document was drawn up in Latin or in Greek; in either case we have the original and not a composition by Luke which contained only the substance. The expression “having this form” (τὸντύποντοῦτον), the Latin exemplum, means “this wording,” Wortfassung (Meyer), and not merely this approximate form or content. Rather decisive in regard to this point is the fact that Luke does not attempt to reproduce the document which Festus knew he had to send to the emperor (26:26); that one was sent is certain, but Luke says nothing about it.
If Luke knew only the contents of the chiliarch’s letter, there is no reason why he should not have been satisfied to relate just that. It would have fully answered his purpose. Because he knew the exact wording he gave it. The letter, too, speaks for its own genuineness, especially the falsification which it contains regarding the time when the chiliarch learned that Paul was a Roman. It is generally conceded that it was an easy matter for Paul or even for Luke himself to hear the letter read and thus to retain it word for word.
Acts 23:26
26Claudius Lysias to the Most Excellent Governor Felix Greeting! See 15:23 for the ancient form of letter writing: 1) the writer, 2) the person addressed, 3) the common χαίρειν as a greeting. We now learn the chiliarch’s name: his cognomen or family name “Lysias” was Greek and a common family name; his nomen gentile (indicating the gens to which he belonged) was Roman and recalls the emperor Claudius. This circumstance and the fact that he bought his Roman citizenship seem to indicate that he was a freedman like Felix himself. Lysias and his soldiers were not Roman legionaries but auxiliaries. Κράτιστος == “Your Excellency,” see Luke 1:4; and “governor” was generally used as a designation for the provincial rulers, in Luke 3:1 for even the emperor.
Acts 23:27
27This man, seized by the Jews and about to be made away with by them, on coming up with the military, I rescued, having learned that he is a Roman. And wanting to know fully the cause on account of which they were accusing him I brought him down into their Sanhedrin; whom I found accused about questions of their law, having no accusation deserving death or bonds. But a plot having been disclosed to me, (one that) would be against the man, at once I sent him to thee, having charged also his accusers to make declaration against him before thee.
It was the business of Lysias to report to the governor all the facts and these in their proper order. He failed on both scores. He says nothing whatever about having put Paul in chains and ordering him to be examined with scourges. We know why. He says that he rescued (second aorist middle of ἐξαιρέω) Paul after having learned that he was a Roman.
The Greek is beyond question. The aorist participle μαθών (from μανθάνω) can express only action that is coincident with or antecedent to that of the main verb, it cannot express subsequent action. Lysias says that he learned that Paul was a Roman and then rescued him. Bengel rightly calls this a lie. A few shield the chiliarch by saying that his military brevity makes his report seem inaccurate on this point. The trouble is the great accuracy which makes the deviation from the fact stand out.
A relative clause would have told the truth: “whom I found to be a Roman.” Lysias makes it appear that he nobly rescued a Roman from fatal attack whereas he really imagined he was capturing an Egyptian rebel and was squelching a riot. He counted on the governor’s inability to find out these details and, in case he did find them out, on explaining them so as to escape blame. Among all the Roman officers we meet in the New Testament this chiliarch makes the poorest showing.
28, 29)He reports correctly regarding the Sanhedrin and what he discovered about Paul from it. Paul was in some way being accused “concerning questions of their (religious) law.” So Gallio had found and promptly dismissed the entire charge as not belonging before a Roman court (18:14, etc.). Lysias adds that he found no accusation which, if it were established as true, was deserving of the penalty of death or of bonds in the sense of imprisonment. In other words, he writes that, as far as he could discover, Paul should be set free.
Acts 23:30
30Why, then, had he not set him free? In order to save Paul from a plot. He turns the entire case over to Felix in order that he may decide whether there is anything worth-while in the Jewish charges. This, too, was not honest, because he knew the question at issue was concerning the resurrection (v. 6) and that on that point the Sadducees opposed Paul just as they opposed all Pharisees. The fact was, the chiliarch wanted to get rid of this case with which he had already burnt his fingers, and with which he had from the beginning really not known what to do. He had to have some reason for sending Paul to the governor and thus getting rid of him and uses this matter of the plot.
The construction, a genitive absolute followed by a future infinitive, shows the flexibility of the Greek. The future infinitive is rare in the New Testament, and the accusative absolute has virtually disappeared. For this reason Luke did not write μηνυθὲνἐπιβουλὴνἔσεσθαι, B.-D. 424. He uses the genitive absolute, “a plot having been disclosed to me,” and then adds the future infinitive in indirect discourse, “that it will be against the man,” which is both neat and lucid in the Greek.
So Lysias promptly sent Paul to Felix, having charged also the accusers to make declaration (λέγειν) against him before thee (common use of ἐπί, R. 603). A few texts add the perfect passive imperative ἔρρωσο (see the plural in 15:29), a stereotyped form: “Farewell,” literally, “become and remain strong.” The question of its retention or rejection belongs to the province of the text critics.
Acts 23:31
31The soldiers, therefore, according to what had been ordered for them, having taken up Paul, brought him by night to Antipatris. And on the morrow, having let the cavalry go away with him, returned to the castle.
The perfect passive participle states that the orders received from the chiliarch were duly executed; all were to march to Antipatris, the seventy cavalrymen alone were to go on from there. Antipatris was forty-two miles from Jerusalem, twenty-six from Caesarea. The question is raised whether, starting at nine o’clock, these soldiers could march forty-two miles before morning. Even if it took them until noon, it was a strenuous tour, indeed. The old Capharsaba was rebuilt by Herod the Great and named Antipatris in honor of his father Antipater; it is now a miserable Mohammedan village.
Acts 23:32
32Although Paul rode he must have been exhausted. But the orders were to push right on with only the cavalry. The foolish orders of this chiliarch are quite ridiculous. Riding into Antipatris with 480 armed men. Paul must have been amused, indeed. Think of a lowly apostle with such an army as his escort! The gospel does stir up some strange actions in the world.
Acts 23:33
33Who, having come to Caesarea and having delivered the letter to the governor, presented also Paul to him. And having read it and having inquired from what kind of a province he was and having learned that he was from Cilicia, he said, I will hear thee fully whenever also thy accusers shall be at hand, ordering that he be guarded in the praetorium of Herod.
It must have been a weary man who tottered into the governor’s presence. Παρέστησαν is the first aorist because it is transitive; the second aorist is identical in form but is intransitive.
Acts 23:34
34Ποῖος (never used with reference to persons, B.-D. 298, 2) may be general: “from what province,” instead of specific: “from what kind of a province,” but the thought is the same. The question was important for it referred to jurisdiction. While Cilicia was not an independent Roman province, it was under the propraetor of Syria who ruled it through a legate. Paul had been arrested in Jerusalem and was thus under the jurisdiction of the procurator of Judea; but being a native of Cilicia, his case, if it involved insurrection, might have to be heard before the propraetor of Syria.
Acts 23:35
35“I will hear thee fully” (διά in the verb) means as a judge. Felix expects the accusers to whom Lysias refers to put in their appearance. Here we have a case where the aorist participle κελεύσας might be conceived as denoting subsequent action and thus having a future sense, for the order remanding Paul to the praetorium certainly followed the promise to hear Paul in due time; but the Greek implies no more than that the order was coincident, R. 861.
Herod’s praetorium = the palace of Herod the Great in Caesarea, now the official residence of the praetor Felix when he was in this city, his capital. Here he, of course, had his force of soldiers. Paul is merely placed in military custody and not remanded to a prison cell. He was confined to the palace which he could not leave. He wore no manacles or chains. This was due to the fact that he was a Roman. Up to this point no specific charges against him were known; he was held only because it was expected that charges would be preferred during the next few days.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.