Acts 23

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 23 PAUL BEFORE THE Act_23:1-10 1 And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council,—Paul fixed his eyes intently on the council; he had been brought before it to answer for his conduct. He was not a criminal— he had done nothing wrong. The Sanhedrin had discovered that Paul was ac¬cused of some religious offense; he was summoned before the council that they might find out what the accusations were; Paul himself did not know what the charges were. He had not been in the hall of the council since he had sat as a member of the court probably twenty-two years ago. He politely addressed the mem¬bers of the council and declared his sincerity at once. He declared that he had lived “ before God in all good conscience until this day.” “ Conscience” comes from the Greek “ suneidesis,” and means “ joint knowledge.” The Latin is “ conscientia,” from which our English “ conscience” is derived. The Greek word for “ lived” means “ having a citizenship.” This statement simply means that Paul had performed the duties of a citizen in a good conscience to God. (Philippians 3:6 Philippians 3:20.) Paul declared that he had lived in such obedience to God’ s law that he had a clear conscience; it does not mean that he is claiming that he had not sinned. (1 Timothy 1:15.) 2 And the high priest Ananias—The smiting on the mouth was a judicial and symbolic mode of silencing the speaker from saying what was improper or false. Ananias is not to be confused with Annas. (Acts 4:6.) Ananias is thought to have been the son of Nebedaeus, and was appointed high priest by Herod in A.D. 48. History describes him as being violent, cruel, and gluttonous. It is recorded that he was assassinated about ten years later. 3 Then said Paul unto him,—Paul very boldly rebuked the high priest for his conduct. He said: “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” “ Whited wall” is the reflection of a stronger figure used by Christ, “ whited sepulcher.” (Matthew 23:27.) Paul gives his reason for the injustice done to him. “ Sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law.” The spirit of the law of Moses forbade one to be condemned without first being heard. Paul shows the inconsistency between theory and fact; Ananias should have upheld the dignity of the law by obeying it himself. His conduct is similar to mob violence today. The victim may need punishment, but for unconstituted authority to mete out the punishment is illegal. Paul here impeaches the high priest in the name of Christ. 4 And they that stood by said,—The attendants and servants of the high priest and the Sanhedrin rebuked Paul for his speech. The high priest was God’ s representative in spite of his bad character. (Deuteronomy 17:8 f.) These attendants claim for Ananias all the dignity, sanctity, and prerogative of his office as God’ s high priest; this was against what Paul had already plainly intimated, that Ananias was acting in direct opposition to God. Paul made reply to these attendants which showed that he understood the situation. 5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren,—This shows that Paul did not know that it was the order of the high priest for him to be smitten. Some take the view that Paul did not know that An¬anias was the high priest. Surely, Paul, who had served as a member of the Sanhedrin, and who was familiar with the proceedings of the council, would know the high priest. We cannot conceive of such ignorance on the part of Paul; hence, we must look for another view of the matter. The Greek means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. Some think that Paul’ s eyesight was not good, and that he did not recognize Ananias as the high priest.

It matters not what interpretation may be given to Paul’ s language, he recog¬nized, and so do we, that he was not treated justly. He quotes Exodus 22:28, showing that he knew the law. 6 But when Paul perceived—Paul quickly saw the attitude of the Sanhedrin toward him; he saw that he could not get a fair hearing before the Sanhedrin. He further saw that there were two parties in the council, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He knew the difference between these parties and tactfully brought them to clash with each other. He declared that he was a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee. He refers to this later in his letter to the church at Philippi. (Philippians 3:5.) He further declared that he was called in question because of the resurrection of the dead. This is not out of harmony with the statement that he did not know what charges would be preferred against him.

He mentions this point at another time. (Acts 24:21.) The chief point of difference be¬tween Pharisees and Sadducees was the resurrection; this was Paul’ s chief point in preaching the gospel. If Christ had not been raised from the dead, his preaching was false. (1 Corinthians 15:13-14.) 7 And when he had so said,—Paul’ s declaration started in the Sanhedrin a discussion on the great question of the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were bitterly opposed to the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection. The party cries were at once heard, and Paul was prevented from going on with his argument for the resurrection of the dead, the res¬urrection of Christ. The difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were partly social and partly religious. The Sadducees were the Jewish aristocracy; they aimed at pre¬serving the temple service and the written regulations of the law of Moses. Their theory or teaching limited man’ s existence to this present life, and hence they denied a resurrection and a future life.

The Pharisees became the leaders of the people in the days of the Persian and Greek rule; they were the unwavering champions of the ceremonial separation under Roman authority. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, and through that faith Paul and many others had been brought to acknowledge the crucified and risen Lord. 8 For the Sadducees say—The Sadducees denied the res¬urrection, angels, and spirits. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees believed in a negative doctrine; they denied three things: (1) the resurrection, believing that the soul dies with the body; (2) the existence of angels and (3) the existence of spirits. The Sadducees cared very little for religion; they dropped out of history soon after the first century of the Christian era. The Pharisees believed in a future life, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of both angels and spirits. 9 And there arose a great clamor:—The dissension grew fiercer until there was a great clamor. The excitement was very great and broke out in an uproar. The “ scribes” belonged to the party of the Pharisees; they were the learned expounders of the law, and would naturally take the lead in such an argument. Hence, they took sides with Paul and defended him against the Sadducees, their enemies. They said: “ We find no evil in this man.” They were ready to take sides with Paul even before they had heard him; this shows their bias and prejudice. A few moments before this they were ready to condemn him, but now they are defending him.

They “ strove’ ’ with the Sadducees. “ Strove” is from the Greek “ diamachomai,” and means “ to fight it out,” “ to fight back and forth fiercely.” In their defense of Paul they said: What does it matter “ if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel” ? They were willing to admit that perhaps a spirit or an angel had spoken to Paul; at least they were willing to admit this in their contention with the Sadducees. 10 And when there arose a great dissension,—The Sanhedrin was composed of about seventy to seventy-two men; we do not know what ratio of them belonged to the Pharisees. It seems that the Sadducees tried to seize and kill Paul, while the Pharisees attempted to rescue and protect him. The council itself became as bad as the mob that had tried to kill Paul the day before. The chief captain, Lysias, knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he was held responsible for him; so he feared that Paul should be “ torn in pieces by them” ; therefore, he commanded his “ soldiers to go down and take” Paul from the council and “ bring him into the castle.” Paul was hastily rescued from the Sanhedrin and delivered safely in the castle. Paul handled the situation very tactfully; he had been brought before a prejudiced court; he saw that the court could be divided, and that too over one of the things which he had preached; hence, he turned the two divisions against each other and put them to fighting each other, one party trying to protect him, and the other trying to kill him. The Roman authority then stepped in and brought him to safety.

PLOT TO KILL PAULAct_23:11-25 11 And the night following—Paul was now a prisoner; the chief captain, Lysias, held him as a prisoner. Conditions were unavorable to Paul; he is discouraged, cast down, full of gloomy doubts. There is no mention of any sympathy from the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. At this time, when all seem to have for¬saken him, “ the Lord stood by him.” He strengthened and encouraged Paul by saying, “ Be of good cheer.” Paul had desired to preach the gospel to his own people in Jerusalem; he had two op¬portunities, and twice he had to be rescued from those who sought to kill him. The first instance is recorded in Acts 9:26-30, and the second is here. The Lord, who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:5), in the temple (Acts 22:17-18), and at Corinth (Acts 18:9), now appeared to him and comforted him with the promise that he would be able to fulfill his desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Acts 19:21; Romans 1:11-13 Romans 15:23). The promise was of further service to the Lord among the Gen¬tiles, and especially at Rome. 12 And when it was day,—At the very time that the Lord was encouraging Paul, the Jews were plotting to kill him. These forty Jews who were planning to murder Paul were in the end to send him to Rome to preach the gospel there. We are not told whether these Jews were Pharisees or Sadducees; the inference is that they were in favor with the Sadducees who had so violently opposed Paul in the council. They bound themselves “ under a curse” that they would “ neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.” These forty Jews “ anathematized themselves.” The Greek “ anathematizo” means “ to place one under a curse.” King Saul took an “ anathema” that imperiled the life of his son Jona¬than. (1 Samuel 14:24.) The Greek for “ banded together” is “ poiesantes sustrophen,” and literally means “ having made a conspiracy.” This pledge not to eat nor drink was a very ancient form of oath or vow. (1 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 3:35.) 13 And they were more than forty—Some think these forty were Assassins and of the Zealots, which was a wild and fanatical party of that time. The number “ forty” shows how many enemies Paul had; it also shows how difficult it would be to keep the secret from Paul’ s friends. We do not know what curse they took upon themselves if they failed to carry out their desire. 14 And they came to the chief priests—These forty Jews who had bound themselves under an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul came “ to the chief priests and the elders” and reported their oath. David had divided the priests into twenty-four courses or classes. The head of each of these classes was called a “ chief priest.” The “ elders” were the rulers of the cities; they may have included some members of the Sanhedrin. It seems clear that the chief priests and those of the elders here mentioned be¬longed to the party of the Sadducees. This band of assassins felt free to go to the Sanhedrin and make known their intentions; they knew that the Sanhedrin was in sympathy with their efforts to kill Paul. Jesus had predicted that “ whosoever killeth you shall think that he offered service unto God.” (John 16:2.) 15 Now therefore do ye with the council signify—Paul was still in the hands of Lysias, the chief captain. This band of assassins told the Sanhedrin in detail their plan. The council was to call on the chief captain to send Paul to the council that Paul may be examined further; they were to call upon Paul and kill him before he came to the council. The council was to make a formal or legal request for a regular and legal investigation; it was assumed that Lysias would be disposed to grant the request. The forty men as¬sured the council that they would do their part and would kill Paul before he came to the council. This would keep the council in the clear, as they thought. The conspirators had stated their case clearly and had revealed the plot to the council which seemed ready to cooperate with them in destroying Paul. 16 But Paul’ s sister’ s son heard—This is the only reference that we have of Paul’ s family in the Acts. In his letter to the Romans Paul speaks of his “ kinsmen” who lived in Rome. (Romans 16:7 Romans 16:11.) His friends here, and afterwards at Caesarea (Acts 24:23), appear to have been permitted to visit him, which shows that the authorities did not think him to be a criminal. It is not certain that Paul’ s sister resided in Jerusalem; neither is it certain that the young man who informed Paul lived in Jerusalem. He was granted permission to visit Paul. We do not know that Paul’ s nephew was a Christian; neither do we know how he gained his information. The fact that the young man “ entered into the cas¬tle” and told Paul of the plot shows that Paul’ s friends had free access to him. 17 And Paul called unto him one of the centurions,—Paul, even as a prisoner, exercised some authority over others; he called one of the “ centurions” or officers to him, and requested this centurion to take “ this young man” to “ the chief captain.” Paul did not trust the centurion with the secret that had been brought to him; he wanted the young man to tell the chief captain from his own mouth the plot that had been laid for him. We gather here that Paul’ s nephew was a “ young man.” Although Paul had been assured of his safety by the Lord (Acts 23:11), he used all precaution and proper means for his safety. God’ s promise does not dispense with the legitimate means that we must use. This young man had some important business with the chief captain, and Paul desired that he be escorted to him by a centurion. 18 So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain,—The centurion was kind enough to take Paul’ s nephew to the chief captain. It is not known that the chief captain or the centurion knew that the young man was Paul’ s nephew. The centurion re¬ported that Paul had called him and asked him to bring “ this young man” to the chief captain, as he had “ something” to say to him. The Roman officers now seem to be careful to treat Paul with kindness, since they know that he is a Roman citizen. Their pre¬vious treatment of him, when they thought he was only a Jew, exposed them to severe penalties of the law should Paul or his friends bring a complaint against them. It was a wise policy for the officers to give Paul as much freedom as possible and to grant his friends the privilege of communicating with him. This helps us to understand the willingness of the centurion to take the young man to Lysias, and the readiness of Lysias to grant a private interview with the young man. 19 And the chief captain took him by the hand,—In verse 18 the centurion refers to “ Paul the prisoner” ; Paul later, in writ¬ing some of his letters, refers to himself as a prisoner. (Ephesians 4:1.) The chief captain received the young man with courtesy; he “ took him by the hand,” which indicated an eager interest in what concerned the case of this prisoner; he showed the young man that he had confidence in him. He took the young man “ aside” and “ asked him privately” what matter he had to bring to him. This shows that the chief captain was eager to get all the information that he could. We do not know the age of this young man; the Greek “ neanias” is the same word that is used with respect to Paul in Acts 7:58; it is also the same word that is used for Eutychus in Acts 20:9. 20 And he said, The Jews have agreed—The young man reported faithfully and accurately the plot that he had learned whereby the Jews had determined to kill Paul. This shows that the conspirators clearly represented the state of Jewish feeling to¬ward Paul in Jerusalem. The young man was able to quote accu¬rately the language of the conspirators. The young man reports that the Jews had agreed to ask Lysias to bring Paul before the council “ as though thou wouldest inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him.” But the conspirators had said to the council to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin so that the Sanhedrin might make further examination of Paul. There seems to be a slight discrep¬ancy here. It may be that the inquiry was proposed to both parties, and the young man only refers to that by Lysias through courtesy to him. 21 Do not thou therefore yield unto them:—The young man now pleaded with Lysias not to yield or listen to the request from the Jews or the Council. The Greek here signifies “ be not thou persuaded by them,” or obey not their request. The young man gave the reason for Lysias’ not yielding to their entreaty by saying that “ there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men” who had determined not to eat nor to drink till they had killed Paul. He further urged that these Jews were now ready and “ looking for the promise from thee” to bring Paul before the council. The Jews waited for the expected promise from the chief captain, and had made ready the ambuscade by which they hoped to get rid of Paul without the Sanhedrin having any apparent hand in the murder. The young man’ s language implies that the council had agreed to the base plot, or that he believed that they would do so. The haste which Lysias exercised in getting Paul out of the city implies that he and the other Roman officials believed the report of the young man. 22 So the chief captain let the young man go,—The chief captain was satisfied with the report, and believed that the young man had told the truth. He enjoined secrecy on the part of the young man that he should not let anyone know that he had re¬ported the Jews to him. His sympathies were clearly with Paul. He cautioned the young man not to let anyone know what he had reported. He did this to avoid any interference with his own plans, or a new conspiracy; also to avoid danger to the young man for revealing the secret; and again to avoid any explanation of his conduct to the Jewish leaders. He did not want the Jews to sus¬pect that his action was based on any knowledge of their plot. He exercised his own rights in sending a prisoner under such circum¬stances to the governor at Caesarea. 23 And he called unto him two of the centurions,—Lysias acted with military promptitude; he ordered two centurions with two hundred soldiers or legionnaires and seventy cavalry and two hundred light armed troops to escort Paul to Caesarea. This was a large escort; he took every precaution to protect the safety of Paul and to deliver him to the Roman authorities at Caesarea. They left “ at the third hour of the night.” This was at nine P.M. It was early enough for them to travel a full night’ s journey under cover of the darkness. With a military guard of two hundred foot soldiers or heavy armed soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred light armed footmen, four hundred seventy soldiers and their officers, Paul was safe from any mob force of conspirators who might try to seize him from the soldiers and kill him. 24 and he bade them provide beasts,—“ Beasts” is from the Greek “ ktene,” and may mean asses or horses; it does not mean war horses. These beasts were for Paul and some soldier to ride. More than one would be needed for Paul’ s use, as he was chained to a soldier; one or more would be needed for baggage. Some have inferred that the entire force was to be mounted on “ beasts” ; but the order was to provide beasts that Paul might be set thereon. He was to be brought to “ Felix the governor.” Felix was a brother of Pallas, the notorious favorite of Claudius. He and his brothers had been slaves, but were now freedmen; Felix was made procurator of Judea by Claudius A.D. 52; he held this position until Festus succeeded him.

He was married to Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I, with the hope of winning the favor of the Jews. Felix was one of the most depraved men of his time; Tacitus says of him that “ with all cruelty and lust he exer¬cised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave/’ The term “ governor” means “ leader,” and was applied to leaders of all sorts. 25 And he wrote a letter—Lysias “ wrote a letter” to Felix the governor. This was the formal and official explanation why Paul was sent to the higher officer for trial; it was called “ elogium” ; this letter was not an accusation against Paul, but rather a statement favorable to him. Some understand that Luke here gives only the substance of the letter and does not give a copy of it. A copy of the letter may have been given Paul after his appeal to Caesar; it was probably written in Latin. The letter was probably read in open court before Felix and its contents could be learned. PAUL SENT TO Act_23:26-35 26 Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor—Paul was sent with a Roman escort of four hundred seventy soldiers from Jerusalem to Caesarea; this was a distance of about seventy miles. Felix was the governor, and Claudius Lysias was the chief captain. Felix was a higher official than Lysias; hence, the very courteous and formal salutation or greeting as given here. “ Most excellent” is a term used by Luke in addressing Theophilus. (Luke 1:3.) This salutation is usual in addressing men of high rank; it is similar to “ most excellent” in Acts 24:3. “ Claudius Lysias” is a Latin name, and “ Felix” is a Greek. Some think that the letter was written in Latin; others think that it was in Greek; we do not know in what language it was written. 27 This man was seized by the Jews,—Lysias here wishes to be understood that he interfered for Paul on account of learning that he was a Roman citizen; this would seem to gain him some favor for his loyalty. However, the truth was that he had unlawfully bound a Roman citizen. He concealed the injustice that he had done to Paul. We see here the difference between the simple truth of the history and the cunning artifice of the skeptical Lysias. This is what we would naturally expect from a clever worldly politician, who had more regard for the favor of his superiors than he had for the truth. Lysias did rescue Paul before he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but he had violated the Roman law before doing this. 28 And desiring to know the cause—Lysias proceeds to state the matter in such a way as to show his official acts were to be commended. Lysias, like Gallio, cared for none of those things which disturb the Jews, and regarded their religious affairs as of no consequence. Lysias intended to show that the prisoner had been treated illegally, and that he had done all that he could to learn the charges against Paul. He had taken Paul, he says, before the Jews’ council. This was to ascertain the nature of his crime. 29 whom I found to be accused—Lysias further states that when he brought Paul before the Sanhedrin he found him accused of violating some of the laws of the Jews. The only accusation that he learned against Paul was that he had violated the law of Moses; this had nothing to do with the Roman law. This is a confession that he had not violated Roman law and was not worthy of death or bonds. Then why should Lysias send him to Felix. Lysias proceeds to give his reason for sending Paul to Caesarea. 30 And when it was shown to me—Roman officers in reporting a prisoner to a higher official must give the charges. Lysias had no crime to charge against Paul, but the determined attempts on the part of the Jews to kill him seemed to demand further inquiry. He does not mention in this letter the fact that Paul was in danger of being torn into pieces before the council; he does declare his knowledge of the plot to kill Paul. This was sufficient ground for sending a Roman citizen where he might be expected to have a fair trial according to Roman law. He states that he charged Paul’ s accusers to go to Caesarea and make their charges known to Felix. Lysias does not seem to state the facts as they are.

There is nothing in the record that shows that he commanded the accusers to appear before Caesar’ s court. He may have done so; at least, he says in this letter that he did. “ Farewell” is added by many ancient authorities, but is omitted here. It will be observed that Lysias does not represent Paul as a convict, but as one who had been rescued from a mob. 31 So the soldiers, as it was commanded them,—This letter of Lysias is inserted by Luke, and breaks the continuity of the historical events. Verse 31 takes up the facts and continues them. The soldiers obeyed the command and brought Paul by night to Antipatris. This place was formerly called “ Capharaba.” It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and called by him “ Antipatris” in memory of his father, Antipater. It was more than forty miles from Jerusalem, and more than halfway from Caesarea. They journeyed all night and made good time. Paul was now out of reach of his conspirators. 32 But on the morrow they left the horsemen—“ On the morrow” may mean the morning of the arrival at Antipatris, or it may mean the day after they arrived there. It seems that some time would be given for rest after journeying all night. It matters but little as to whether it means the next day after leaving Jerusalem or the next day after arrival at Antipatris. “ They left the horsemen” to go on with Paul. The journey on to Caesarea was through a hilly region where there was much danger. There were four hundred seventy, and four hundred of them returned to Jerusalem, while the seventy horsemen continued with Paul. We are not told why these four hundred turned back; they had orders to go as far as Caesarea. (See verse 23.) 33 and they, when they came to Caesarea—Those who were in charge of the cavalry went on with Paul to Caesarea and presented Paul with the letter from Lysias to Governor Felix. In this way they executed their commission. It was probably a journey of five or six hours from Antipatris to Caesarea. They waited further orders from the governor. Paul thus entered Caesarea with the pomp of attendance very unlike the humble guise in which he had left it. They entered Caesarea in daylight, and such a parade would have attracted many curious eyes. Philip and other Christians of Caesarea must have been startled to recognize the rapid fulfillment of prophecy concerning Paul’ s journey to Jerusalem. 34 And when he had read it,—When Felix read the letter from Lysias, he inquired from what province Paul came. He was informed by Paul or some other one that Paul was from Cilicia, which was an imperial province. He did not inquire whether Paul was a Roman citizen; that was stated in the letter of Lysias to Felix. Felix probably inquired of his native province that he might ascertain whether he had jurisdiction over him; it seems that Felix would have gladly avoided trying Paul. There were laws regulating provincial relations, and one government was not at liberty to rely entirely on another’ s letter, but must himself make thorough investigation. This Felix did. 35 I will hear thee fully,—Since Cilicia was an imperial province, Felix had jurisdiction over the trial of Paul. He informed Paul that he would hear him “ fully” when his accusers came. This meant that he would give Paul’ s case a formal examination, and implied that he would give him a fair trial. Felix commanded Paul to be “ kept in Herod’ s palace.” This was built by Herod the Great; Judea was now a Roman province, and the palace of its former kings had become the governor’ s official residence. It appears that Paul was dealt with kindly. It seems that Paul was kept near the governor’ s place of residence. Paul was under honorable restraint, “ a Roman, and uncondemned.” Paul was guarded or detained by soldiers, and had to wait the slow processes of a trial.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 23Act 23:1-2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) “Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth.” No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating. Acts 23:3-5. For once in the history of his persecution, the provocation was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) “Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall. And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) But those who were standing by said, Do you revile God’s high priest? (5) Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” The flash of anger was but momentary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control regained its ascendancy. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would have been true, but insufficient.

For how can we return good for evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the hands of their rulers. Acts 23:6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) “But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees’ party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man.

And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle.” It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence.

But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle. Acts 23:11. If we had some epistle from Paul’s pen, written at this time, it would tell of great distress and despondency; for such a state of mind is clearly indicated by an event which now transpired. (11) “And the night following, the Lord stood by him and said, Take courage, Paul, for as you have testified concerning me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” It is not to be presumed that this personal appearance of the Lord to encourage him occurred when it was not needed, or when encouragement could be supplied in an ordinary way. It is quite certain, therefore, that Paul’s spirit was greatly burdened that night. The long-dreaded bonds and afflictions, which had hung like a dark cloud before him on his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, had now at last fallen upon him. Thus far, since his arrest, he may have been cheered by the hope that the fervent prayers of himself and many brethren, which, in anticipation of these calamities, had been urged at the throne of favor for months past, would prove effectual for his deliverance, and for the realization of his long-cherished desire to visit Rome. But his speeches before the mob and the Sanhedrim had only exasperated his enemies, who were now, more than ever, intent upon his destruction; and his jailer, though disposed to do justice, knew not what to do but to keep him in prison.

In whatever direction he could look, prison walls or a bloody grave stood before him, and hedged up his way, either to Rome or to any other field of future usefulness. But just at the proper moment to save him from despair, the solemn assurance is give, that his long-continued prayers would yet be answered, and he should preach the Word in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem. In tracing the fulfillment of this promise, we shall witness a remarkable illustration of the workings of providence in answer to prayer. Acts 23:12-16. The light did not immediately dawn upon his prospects, but the darkness continued for a while to grow deeper. (12) “And when it was day some of the Jews made a conspiracy, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. (13) And there were more than forty who made this agreement. (14) They went to the high priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing till we have killed Paul. (15) Now then, do you, with the Sanhedrim, notify the chiliarch to bring him down to you to-morrow, as though you would inquire more accurately concerning him, and we, before he comes near, are ready to slay him. (16) But the son of Paul’s sister heard of their lying in wait, and came and entered into the castle, and told Paul.” It is difficult for a conspiracy for this kind, requiring the consultation of so many persons, to be concocted and executed with perfect secrecy. Especially is it so when the intended victim is one about whom the whole community is, at the time, intensely excited. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that some of Paul’s many friends heard of it, and that his nephew undertook the dangerous task of communicating it to him. He at once saw, that, notwithstanding the assurance of safety given the night before, the danger of his situation was more alarming than ever. The chiliarch could not well refuse to grant so reasonable a request; and if it is granted, his doom is sealed. If the Pharisees who had befriended him in the Sanhedrim had not become indifferent to his fate, they had been outwitted, so that the Sadducees were about to make the request in the name of the whole Sanhedrim without consulting them. Acts 23:17-22. A moment’s reflection was sufficient to show Paul that his only hope of safety was in the chiliarch, and, therefore, he at once had the facts communicated to him. (17) “Then Paul called to him one of the centurions, and said, Lead this young man to the chiliarch; for he has something to tell him. (18) He then took him and led him to the chiliarch, and said, The prisoner, Paul, called me to him and requested me to lead this young man to you, who has something to say to you. (19) The chiliarch took him by the hand, and drawing aside in private, asked him, What is it that you have to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jews have agreed to request you that you bring down Paul into the Sanhedrim to-morrow, as though they would inquire more accurately concerning him. (21) But do not be persuaded by them; for there lie in wait for him more than forty men of them, who have bound themselves under a curse neither to eat nor drink until they have slain him. And they are now prepared, expecting a promise from you. (22) Then the chiliarch dismissed the young man, charging him to tell no one that you have made known these things to me.” The injunction of secrecy was prompted in part by a desire for the young man’s safety; but chiefly by an unwillingness that the Jews should know the real cause of the steps he was about to take. If they should discover that their machinations could influence his policy, they might be emboldened to give him further trouble. Acts 23:23-30. There were at least three lines of policy between which the chiliarch could have chosen. If he had been disposed to gratify the Jews, he might have given Paul up to their malice, without probability of being known to his superiors as accessory to the murder. If he had preferred to defy their power, and display his own, he might have sent him down to the Sanhedrim under a strong guard. Or if he desired to protect Paul, yet to avoid giving unnecessary offense to the Jews, he might send him away that night before their request was laid before him. It reflects credit upon his character that he chose the course which both justice and prudence dictated. (23) “And he called to him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen, to go to Cæsarea at the third hour of the night, (24) and provide beasts, in order that they may mount Paul and take him to Felix the governor. (25) And he wrote a letter in this form: (26) Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. (27) This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be killed by them, when I came with the soldiery and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. (28) And desiring to know the cause for which they accused him, I led him down into their Sanhedrim, (29) and found him accused concerning questions of their law, but having nothing laid to his charge worthy of dead or of bonds. (30) And it being disclosed to me that a plot against the man was about to be executed by the Jews, I immediately sent him to you, commanding his accusers to say before you what they have against him.

Farewell.” But for one misrepresentation in this letter, there would be nothing discreditable to Lysias in this whole affair. He had acted like a just and prudent man in managing a difficult case; but in reporting to his superior, he so states the facts as to give himself credit to which he was not entitled. He states that his first rescue of Paul was prompted by the fact that he was a Roman citizen; whereas, in truth, he knew nothing of Paul’s citizenship till after he had seized him and had prepared to scourge him. Thus a motive was claimed which was not real, and a fault which he had committed was suppressed. When we remember, however, that it is a common fault with military commanders to make the most favorable reports of their achievements, we are not disposed to give Lysias a low rank among his compeers for veracity. The statement that he had commanded Paul’s accusers to say before Felix what they had against him, was not strictly true; for, at the time of writing, he had given no such command. But it was not intended to deceive the governor; for he intended to issue the order before the letter could be received. When this order was issued, the Jews were bitterly disappointed, and the forty conspirators had a prospect of a good long fast. They naturally felt some ill-will toward Lysias, as we shall see manifested hereafter, for snatching their victim out of their hands. The letter also shows, that though Lysias could not understand the exact nature of the charges against Paul, he knew that they had reference to the Jewish law, and was satisfied that what they accused him of was not worthy either of death or of imprisonment. Under this conviction, if he had not been constrained to send him away for safety, he would, probably, have released him. Acts 23:31-35. (31) “Then the soldiers, according to what was commanded them, took Paul and conducted him by night to Antipatris, (32) and, on the next day, they returned to the castle, leaving the horsemen to go forward with him. (33) They went to Cæsarea, delivered the epistle to the governor, and presented Paul before him. (34) And when the governor read the epistle, he asked of what province he was, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, (35) he said, I will hear you when your accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.” This was a palace erected by Herod the Great, who built Cæsarea. When the troops guarding Paul has passed beyond the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, there was no further use for the powerful force of infantry; hence the return of the four hundred soldiers and spearmen. The distinction between these two classes is, that those called soldiers belonged to the regular Roman legions, while the spearmen were light-armed troops attached to the legions. This incident in Paul’s history has been made to bear a part in the controversy as to whether military service is compatible with Christianity. It is urged that Paul could not consistently accept the services of an army of four hundred and seventy men to protect his life from a Jewish mob, unless he acknowledged the rightfulness of military service. But the facts in the case are not suitable to the argument. He did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for military interference; but the military had already interfered, without consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him; and his request was, that they should exercise the power which they had chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no more an indorsement of highway robbery than Paul’s request, expressed through his nephew, was an indorsement of military service. There is not an instance on record in which the apostles ever called for military interference in their times of suffering and persecution. “ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Twenty-Three IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To consider the events of Paul before the Sanhedrin

2. To review the plot by the Jews for Paul’s life

3. To examine Paul’s transport to Caesarea to appear before Governor Felix

SUMMARY When Paul was before the Sanhedrin council, he stated that he had lived in “all good conscience before God.” Ananias, the high priest, commanded that he be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, not knowing that he was the high priest, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” Those standing nearby asked Paul if he would “revile” the high priest. Paul then quoted the scriptures, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” Paul recognized that there were Sadducees and Pharisees present in the Sanhedrin. He made it known that he was a Pharisee, and that he was being judged concerning “the hope and resurrection of the dead.” This caused a dissension among the Sanhedrin, as the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection. The scribes of the Pharisees spoke out that they found nothing evil in Paul. The Roman commander became afraid that harm would come to Paul, so he ordered the soldiers to take Paul back to the barracks. (Acts 23:1-10)

The following night, the Lord appeared and spoke to Paul. He was to be the Lord’s witness at Rome, as he had testified for Him in Jerusalem. Some Jews then planned to kill Paul. More than forty Jews banded together and took an oath to kill him before they ate or drank anything. The plotting Jews went to the chief priests and elders to present their plan. They requested that the chief priests and elders would contact the commander, and have Paul appear before the council again for further inquiry. The forty or more Jews would lie in wait to kill him along the way. Paul’s nephew heard of the ambush plot. He went to Paul in the barracks and told him what he heard. Paul had his nephew taken to the commander. The commander took him aside and heard the plot. The commander told the young man to tell no one that they had spoken about the plot. Paul’s nephew then departed from the commander. (Acts 23:11-22)

Next, Paul was to be sent to Felix at Caesarea by night. The commander had two centurions prepare the men to take Paul. 200 Soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen were readied. They were to take Paul to Caesarea at the third hour of the night. Paul was to go before governor Felix. The commander wrote a letter to Felix to accompany Paul. The commander, Claudius Lysias, addressed the letter to “the most excellent governor Felix.” The letter summarized the situation with Paul. The Jews had seized Paul and were about to kill him. Troops were sent to rescue Paul. In an attempt to learn of the Jews’ accusation of Paul, he took him before the Sanhedrin council. He only learned that Paul was accused “concerning questions of the law,” but nothing deserving death or imprisonment. The commander learned of a plot to ambush and kill Paul. Due to this discovery, he sent Paul to Felix and ordered his accusers to appear before Felix to state their charges against him. The letter gave Felix the background. The soldiers, horsemen, and spearmen took Paul by night to Antipatris. The next day, the horsemen continued, and took Paul to Caesarea, while the soldiers and spearmen returned. They presented Paul and the letter to Felix. The governor inquired where Paul was from and understood that he was from Cilicia. He agreed to hear Paul when his accusers arrived. Felix had Paul held in Herod’s Praetorium. (Acts 23:23-35)

OUTLINE I. PAUL BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 23:1-10) A. THE HIGH PRIEST ANANIAS FOR PAUL TO BE STRUCK ON THE MOUTH (Acts 23:1-3)1. Paul stated he had lived in “all good conscience before God” 2. Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth 3. Paul responded, not knowing that Ananias was high priest a. Paul said, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” b. Paul noted that he had commanded him to be struck contrary to the law

B. PAUL DID NOT ANANIAS AS HIGH PRIEST (Acts 23:4-5)1. When Paul spoke to Ananias, those standing near asked, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” 2. Paul did not know Ananias was the high priest a. Paul quoted scripture in response b. “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people”

C. THE WAS DIVIDED (Acts 23:6-10)1. Paul recognized that there were Sadducees and Pharisees present in the Sanhedrin 2. Paul made it known that he was a Pharisee and was being judged concerning “the hope and resurrection of the dead” a. This caused a dissension among the Sanhedrin b. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection; the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection c. The scribes of the Pharisees spoke out that they found nothing evil in Paul 3. The Roman commander became afraid that harm would come to Paul 4. The commander ordered the soldiers to take Paul back to the barracks

II. THE JEWISH PLOT AGAINST PAUL’S LIFE (Acts 23:11-22) A. THE LORD SPOKE TO PAUL (Acts 23:11)1. The Lord appeared and spoke to Paul the following night 2. Paul was to be the Lord’s witness at Rome

B. THE JEWS PLANNED TO KILL PAUL (Acts 23:12-15)1. More than forty Jews banded together and took an oath to kill Paul before they ate or drank anything 2. The plotting Jews went to the chief priests and elders to present their plan a. The chief priests and elders were to contact the commander b. They wanted Paul to be called before the council again for further inquiry c. The forty Jews would lie in wait to kill him along the way

C. THE PLOT WAS (Acts 23:16-22)1. Paul’s nephew heard of the ambush plot 2. He went to Paul in the barracks and told him what he had heard 3. Paul had his nephew taken to the commander a. The commander took him aside and heard the plot b. The commander told the young man to tell no one that they had spoken about the plot c. Paul’s nephew departed from the commander

III. PAUL WAS SENT TO FELIX AT BY NIGHT (Acts 23:23-35) A. THE HAD TWO PREPARE TO TAKE PAUL (Acts 23:23-24)1. 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen were prepared 2. They were to take Paul to Caesarea at the third hour of the night 3. Paul was to go before governor Felix

B. THE WROTE A LETTER TO FELIX (Acts 23:25-30)1. Claudius Lysias was the Roman commander’s name 2. The letter was address to “the most excellent governor Felix” 3. The letter summarized the situation with Paul a. The Jews had seized Paul and were about to kill him b. Troops were sent to rescue Paul c. To learn of the Jews’ accusation, the commander took Paul before the Sanhedrin d. He only learned that Paul was accused “concerning questions of the law,” but nothing deserving death or imprisonment e. The commander learned of a plot to ambush and kill Paul f. Due to this, he sent Paul to Felix and ordered his accusers to appear before Felix to state their charges against him

C. PAUL WAS TAKEN TO AND TO FELIX (Acts 23:31-35)1. The soldiers, horsemen, and spearmen took Paul by night to Antipatris 2. The next day, the horsemen continued, and took Paul to Caesarea, while the soldiers and spearmen returned 3. They presented Paul and the letter to Felix a. Felix inquired where Paul was from and understood that he was from Cilicia b. He agreed to hear Paul when his accusers arrived c. He had Paul held in Herod’s Praetorium

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main events in this chapter?- Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-10)

• The Jewish plot against Paul’s life (Acts 23:11-22)
• Paul was sent to Felix at Caesarea by night (Acts 23:23-35)

2. How did Paul begin his address to the Sanhedrin? (Acts 23:1)- “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” (Acts 23:1)

3. How did the high priest Ananias respond? (Acts 23:2)- He commanded him to be struck on the mouth (Acts 23:2)

4. Why did Paul take issue with that action? (Acts 23:3)- They were supposedly judging him according to the law, but they were acting contrary to the law by striking him (Acts 23:3)

5. Did Paul know that Ananias was the high priest? (Acts 23:4-5)- No (Acts 23:5)

6. What did Paul recognize (or “perceive”) about the council? (Acts 23:6)- He recognized that one part was Sadducees and the other Pharisees (Acts 23:6)

7. What was the noted difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees? (Acts 23:7-8)- Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, nor angels or spirits (Acts 23:8)

• Pharisees believed in the resurrection, and angels and spirits (Acts 23:8)

8. For what did Paul say he was being judged? (Acts 23:6)- “concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6)

9. Who said, “We find no evil in this man?” What was their recommendation? (Acts 23:9)

• The scribes of the Pharisees’ party (Acts 23:9)
• “let us not fight against God” (Acts 23:9)

10. Why did the commander order that Paul be taken to the barracks? (Acts 23:10)- He was afraid he would be “pulled to pieces” (Acts 23:10)

11. Who appeared to Paul the following night? What did He say? (Acts 23:11)- The Lord (Acts 23:11)

• “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” (Acts 23:11)

12. What did some of the Jews band together to do? What was their oath? About how many banded together? (Acts 23:12-13)- They banded together to kill Paul (Acts 23:12)

• Not to eat or drink until they killed Paul (Acts 23:12)
• More than forty Jews (Acts 23:13)

13. Describe the plot to kill Paul. (Acts 23:14-15)- The plotting Jews wanted the Sanhedrin council to call back before them for “further inquiries” (Acts 23:15)

• They planned to ambush (kill) Paul before he arrived (Acts 23:15)

14. Who heard about the ambush? Who did he go tell? What did he do next? (Acts 23:16-22)- Paul’s sister’s son (Paul’s nephew) heard about the ambush (Acts 23:16)

• He went to the barracks and told Paul (Acts 23:16)
• Paul had him taken to the commander (Acts 23:17)
• The commander took him aside privately, and Paul’s nephew described what he had heard about the ambush (Acts 23:19-21)
• The commander let him go, and told the young man to tell no one that he had discussed this with him (Acts 23:22)

15. What did the commander do after learning of the plot? (Acts 23:23-30)- He told two centurions to prepare men to go to Caesarea (Acts 23:23)

• 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen (Acts 23:23)
• They were to take Paul to Felix by night (Acts 23:23-24)
• He wrote a letter to Felix, summarizing Paul’s situation (Acts 23:25-30)

16. What question did Felix ask upon receiving Paul and the letter? (Acts 23:33-34)- He asked what province Paul was from (Acts 23:34)

• He learned that he was from Cilicia (Acts 23:34)

17. When did Felix agree to hear Paul’s case? (Acts 23:35)- When his accusers arrived (Acts 23:35)

18. Where was Paul kept, while waiting for the accusers? (Acts 23:35)- Herod’s Praetorium (Acts 23:35)

Verse 1 The period of Paul’s imprisonment began with his arrest and rescue by Claudius Lysias, as recorded in the last chapter; and here we have the second of five pleas which Paul made in the various situations developing from his being a prisoner. This imprisonment was to last until the conclusion of Acts. B. PAUL’S SECOND DEFENSE: HIS PLEA BEFORE THE And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (Acts 23:1-2) The council … This was the historic court of the Hebrews called the Sanhedrin, including perhaps some of the very men who had condemned Jesus to death. “They no longer met in the famous hall called the Lishcath Haggazzith,"[1] in the sacred area where no Gentile might have gone, but in a more public place, as indicated by the soldiers having access to it a bit later. In all good conscience until this day … Paul repeatedly affirmed that he had always maintained a good conscience in the sight of God (1 Corinthians 4:4), even declaring that “from his forefathers” he had worshiped God with a pure conscience (2 Timothy 1:3). This “is an unanswerable argument against the oft-repeated theory” that all religious actions are right, just so long as one is sincere in what he does.[2]For a more extended comment on “Conscience,” see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 9:14; and for a full sermon on “Higher and Lower Courts,” see in my book, The Gospel in Gotham, pp. 17-25. Conscience is important to every man; but the value of conscience as a guide is determined by the kind of teaching upon which it is founded. Jesus himself told the Twelve that “Whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God” (John 16:2). Ranked in the ascending order of their authority: (1) public opinion, (2) conscience, and (3) the word of God are the three tribunals before which every man is judged. Ananias … His ordering Paul to be struck in the mouth was an arrogant and illegal display of prejudice and unscrupulous hatred toward Paul. The order was probably obeyed the instant it was given. “He was one of the most disgraceful profaners of the sacred office of the high priest."[3] Hervey questioned whether or not Ananias was actually high priest at this time, because “Josephus speaks of a Jonathan who was high priest during the government of Felix.“Acts 2 p. 211.">[4] Besides that, as Lewis pointed out, the New Testament usage of “high priest” has three meanings: (1) the man in office, (2) one who had previously held it, and (3) a member of the privileged family from whom the high priests were chosen.[5]This Ananias was a son of Nedebaeus and had acquired the office from Chalcis, a brother of Herod Agrippa I, in 47 A.D. and held it (probably with some interruptions) until 59 AD.[6] He was an appropriate successor to those who had murdered the Lord. Regarding the council meeting in which this defense of Paul occurred, it may not be thought of as any formal gathering of the Sanhedrin with the high priest in charge. Lysias was in charge of this meeting. Ramsay said: “This meeting was convoked by a Roman military officer, and was not a formal assembly presided over by a high priest in official dress."[7] Any or all of the circumstances noted above may have accounted for Paul’s failure to recognize Ananias as high priest. [1] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 295. [2] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: College Press), 2p. 72. [3] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 449. Acts 2 p. 211.">[4] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Acts 2 p. 211. [5] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 169. [6] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 449. [7] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 280. Verse 3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?God shall smite thee … This was doubtless a prophecy put in Paul’s mouth by the Lord; for it is a fact that not many years later the reprobate Ananias was murdered by his own people at the time of the beginning of the Jewish war. Contrary to law … It was illegal to smite a man who had not been condemned; and, as yet, Paul had not even been tried; but such nice distinctions concerning the rights of defendants had long before ceased to exist in the reprobate court known as the Sanhedrin. The final years of that once sacred tribunal were marked by every kind of vice and venality. Revilest thou God’s high priest … ? It WAS illegal to revile an authority such as the high priest; but the Sanhedrinists were much quicker to defend that law than they were to honor the law forbidding striking a man illegally. Verse 5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.I knew not … There is no reason whatever to accuse Paul of blindness (or near-sightedness), as some have done, or to insist that “Surely Paul would know the high priest,"[8] or that he spoke sarcastically, as if to say, “You cannot make a high priest out of contemptible material like that!"[9] For reasons cited under Acts 23:4, the view here is that Paul simply spoke the truth and that he did not know the high priest by his personal appearance, although he might indeed have known his name. Milligan, however, thought that Paul simply regarded Ananias “as a usurper."[10] Paul’s admission of wrong and the citing of the scripture inExodus 22:28 which he had inadvertently violated does not seem to allow the view that Paul would have said what he did, if he had known he was addressing the high priest. True enough, the current holder of the office was vile; but the office itself had long been accounted sacred. Paul’s understandable outrage and impromptu protest, in all probability inspired, had two very important results: (1) it prophesied the destruction of Ananias, and (2) it led Paul to see at once that there was not any possibility of justice for himself in such a tribunal. “There was no prospect before this tribunal of a fair inquiry and a just decision."[11] This accounts for the strategy Paul immediately employed in his defense. [8] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 363. [9] W. R. Walker, op. cit., p. 72. [10] Robert Milligan, Analysis of the New Testament (Cincinnati, Ohio: Bosworth, Chase and Hall, Publishers), p. 396. [11] W. J. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 591. Verse 6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out to the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.This writer has no sympathy at all for the views of writers like Farrar who “on moral grounds,” no less, are critical of what Paul here did. There was no fault whatever on the part of Paul in setting those mad-dogs at each other’s throats instead of his own. He well knew the schismatic condition of the Sanhedrin and very wisely took advantage of it in order to save his own life. The resurrection of the dead … The so-called “moral problem” comes here. Was it strictly true that Paul had been brought before them because of his teaching on the doctrine of the resurrection? Well, of course it was. As Alexander Campbell noted: The literal resurrection of the dead, in the person of the Son of Mary and the Son of God, was the omnipotent argument, wielded with irresistible power by the eyewitnesses of the fact, against Sadduceeism and every form of materialism and infidelity, which any form of philosophy, falsely so-called, has ever obtruded upon mankind.[12]That Paul on this occasion elected to state the fundamental precept of Christianity in such a manner as to divide his foes was a stroke of genius and should be praised and appreciated. When Jesus appeared to Paul later on that same occasion (that night), there was not one word of blame or censure. ENDNOTE: [12] Alexander Campbell, Acts of the Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), p. 155. Verse 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great clamor: and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ part stood up, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?Paul’s identification of himself as a Pharisee is also offensive to some people; but it should be remembered that the “noble Pharisee” must never be identified with the Pharisees whom Jesus denounced. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 3:7, for classifications of Pharisees. Many priests became Christians (Acts 6:7), most of whom were doubtless Pharisees; and it is very likely that much of Luke’s gospel (Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:28) was researched through Luke’s interviews with such Pharisees (then Christians) while Paul suffered the two whole years incarceration in Caesarea. The true and righteous Pharisees, of whom Paul must be reckoned, obeyed the gospel. Paul’s words in this passage have the effect of saying, “Only such as I am are the TRUE Pharisees.” The notion that Paul’s claiming to be a Pharisee in this situation was improper, is nullified altogether by the fact that he also made the same claim before King Agrippa (Acts 26:5) and in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 3:5); thus there was nothing unusual about the identification of himself with the Pharisees here. Verse 10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the castle.Dissension … This was the third riot in two days! And, at that time, the chief captain was still totally ignorant of any cause for such disturbances. Lysias had saved Paul’s life in each of the three riots, and would be called upon to save it a fourth time the next day. “He must have been confused and disgusted. What kind of people were these Jews? He could make no sense out of their words and actions."[13]We have speculated somewhat with regard to Paul’s insistence on returning to Jerusalem, even wondering if perhaps there was some degree, at least, of Paul’s being out of complete harmony with the divine will by his refusal to change his plans.

Certainly the disciples at Tyre interpreted the words of the Holy Spirit as a directive for Paul “not to set foot in Jerusalem” (Acts 21:4); and Luke agreed with them. Whether or not they were right is immaterial, because Paul did not so interpret the words of the Spirit but went on to Jerusalem, the others reluctantly saying, “The will of the Lord be done.” In this problem we may have a glimpse of the truth that men do not always know with dogmatic certainty what the words of the Holy Spirit mean. Otherwise, it would not be true that “We walk by faith and not by sight.” There must have been some dreadful feelings of uncertainty, disappointments and grief in Paul’s heart, and emotions of fear that perhaps, after all, he had been wrong about this trip to Jerusalem. Then came the glorious reassurance from the Lord himself. ENDNOTE: [13] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 297. Verse 11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer: for as thou hast testified concerning me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness at Rome also.Christ himself comforted and strengthened his apostle. Trenchard analyzed the meaning of this episode thus: There is not a whisper of reproach but: (a) encouragement from the Lord of all comfort, (b) the ratification of the witness in Jerusalem, despite all the turbulence; and (c) confirmation of the purpose that Paul should witness in Rome.[14]Our Lord’s specific assurance that Paul should go to Rome could indicate that Paul’s mind had been deeply troubled by events which he might have thought were the end of any hopes he had of going to Rome. The very fact of Jesus’ appearance to Paul in this context speaks of the absolute necessity of it. ENDNOTE: [14] E. H. Trenchard, A New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 331. Verse 12 And when it was day, the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty that made this conspiracy. And they came to the chief priests and the elders, and said, we have bound ourselves under a curse, to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. Now therefore do ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you, as though ye would judge of his case more exactly: and we, before he comes near, are ready to slay him.The Lord had called the temple a den of thieves and robbers; and here is the most amazing proof of it. More than forty … How many more? Well, to the forty, one must add the chief priests and the elders of the people, the entire dominant factor which controlled the temple itself. How evil this once glorious institution had become! Once the moral nature of man is decapitated at the highest level, the consequent descent to lower and lower levels of shame, carnality and depravity is inevitable and accelerated. Having rejected the Christ only some thirty years before, the temple partisans at the time here recorded shamelessly exhibited the morality of a group of vicious outlaws. Incidentally, it should be observed that the whole temple party had already conceded to themselves that any fair hearing of Paul’s case before Lysias would result in his acquittal. This conspiracy, therefore, is their own announcement of Paul’s innocence. Bound … under a curse … Bruce gave the form of such an oath thus, “So may God do to us, and more also, if we eat or drink until we have killed Paul."[15] The spirit of Jezebel rested upon the temple fathers, for she made a similar vow: “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time” (1 Kings 19:2). Conspiracy … This word occurs “only here in the New Testament."[16] Amazingly, they “knew that many of the chief priests and elders would favor their murderous designs,"[17] indicating that the satanic behavior in the temple was known to many and recognized as typical of their operations. The plot to kill Paul was skillfully designed and would in all probability have succeeded if it had not been providentially frustrated. It was simple enough. The high priest would request of Lysias another hearing, promising, of course, that no riot would ensue next time, and pretending of course that they would fully resolve the matter at another hearing; and there was no reason to suppose Lysias might not have honored such a request. In the meanwhile, forty desperate men, armed with daggers, would waylay the escort as they started for the meeting place and murder Paul before he ever appeared before the Sanhedrin, which of course would have professed surprise and avoided all implications involving themselves.

Beautiful! But God did not allow it. [15] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 457. [16] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 213. [17] Matthew Henry, Henry-Scott Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 523. Verse 16 But Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, and he came and entered into the castle and told Paul.Paul’s sister’s son … This is all that is known of this “young man,” as Paul called him, and all that is known of Paul’s sister; and we shall refrain from indulging speculative guesses concerning them. It seems proper, however, to receive the deduction of Conybeare to the effect that “The whole narrative gives the impression that he was a very young man."[18] This is justified by the chiliarch’s taking him “by the hand” (Acts 23:19). It would be interesting to know just how this lad learned so much about that conspiracy, and if his mother was a Christian, and why, if they were living in Jerusalem, Paul would have been staying with Mnason instead of his sister, etc. Root’s suggestion that “the young man” might have been “a rabbinical student in Jerusalem as Paul himself had been a generation before”[19] is an example of the guessing which scholars like to indulge. [18] W. J. Conybeare, op. cit., p. 594. [19] Orrin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 177. Verse 17 And Paul called unto him one of the centurions, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain; for he hath something to tell him.Note that Paul did not trust the centurion with the message, but rather contrived to get it delivered to the chief captain himself. Verse 18 So he took him and brought him to the chief captain, and saith, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and asked me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say to thee.This young man … The same word is used of Paul, as “the young man” at whose feet the clothes of Stephen were laid. The centurion discharged the errand for Paul exactly as requested, indicating the favor in which Paul was viewed in the castle. Paul the prisoner … Alas, this was to be the status of Paul for half a decade. Verse 19 And the chief captain took him by the hand, and going aside asked him privately, What is it that thou hast to tell me?The care with which Lysias protected himself against any possible eavesdropping is notable, and his caution was well rewarded; for after receiving the tip-off on what was afoot, he could move without the temple conspirators’ knowledge that he had intentionally acted to thwart their murder of an innocent man. In the political climate of that era, this was decidedly to his advantage. Verse 20 And he said, The Jews have agreed to ask thee to bring down Paul tomorrow unto the council, as though thou wouldest inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him. Do not thou therefore yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, who have bound themselves under a curse, neither to eat nor to drink until they have slain him: and now are they ready, looking for the promise from thee.The full and concise manner of “the young man’s” report suggests that he was at least of sufficient age to grasp all the details of the plot, indicating also the exercise of a rather subtle diplomacy. Whereas the plotters proposed that the council should have Paul brought down, in order that “they” the council might further examine him, the young man’s report of it gave the right of inquiry to the chiliarch, “as though thou wouldest inquire.” Verse 22 So the chief captain let the young man go, charging him, Tell no man that thou hast signified these things to me.Thus protecting himself against any premature knowledge of what he might do, the chiliarch acted with decisive speed and authority to checkmate the evil conspirators. Verse 23 And he called unto him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready, two hundred soldiers to go as far as Caesarea, and horsemen three score and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night: and he bade them provide beasts, that they might set Paul thereon, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.The whole force was 470 men; and their departure at the third hour of the night (9:00 P.M.) was thus well ahead of any request the chief priests might send to him the next day; and the size of the escort was large enough to kill any thought of the forty conspirators of following it, overtaking it, and murdering Paul anyway. This abruptly aborted their plot. Provide beasts … This has been variously understood as the need of several mounts for Paul, which would be changed from time to time on such a forced march; or as including mounts for the soldiers guarding Paul, and to whom he was still presumably chained; or as including sufficient mounts for Luke and other companions of Paul. The text affords no way of knowing exactly what all might have been included. Felix the governor … This was the procurator of Judaea, one of the successors of Pontius Pilate, although the office itself, for a time, had disappeared under the rule of Herod Antipas I, who was king over the whole area once ruled by Herod the Great; and, of course, during his reign no procurators were needed. However, Herod was summarily slain by an angel of God (Acts 12:23) in 44 A.D.; and after that, the old system of procurators was revived. FELIXFelix Marcus Antonius, a brother of Pallas, the notorious favorite of Claudius, through influence at Rome, was named procurator of Judaea about 52 A.D., an office he held until recalled by Nero in 59 A.D. He was succeeded by Festus. Thus, this is another date in secular history that touches and illuminates Acts. The events being described by Luke in this chapter occurred two years before the recall of Felix, that is, in 57 A.D.[20] (This favors a 55 A.D. date for Romans.) Felix, trading on his influence in Rome, was an unscrupulous scoundrel. Paul was innocent, and should have been released at once; but Felix hoped to get a fat bribe, and kept Paul in prison. He put down certain brigands and robbers, “but he himself was worse than any of them."[21] Hervey tells how he “murdered Jonathan the high priest, using the ,"[22] one of the “high priests” who held office during the term of Ananias, whose high priesthood was interrupted. The epitaph which history has written by his name is this: “With savagery and lust, he exercised the powers of a king with the disposition of a slave.” [20] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 421. [21]; ISBE, Vol. II, pp. 1105. [22] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 211. Verse 25 And he wrote a letter after this form: Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, greeting.Here is revealed the name of the chief captain. The coincidence of his being called “Claudius” at a time when Claudius was emperor might have resulted from Lysias’ mere annexation of the name “as a compliment to the emperor, such liberties being then common."[23]Felix … See under preceding verse. In addition to what is said above, Felix’ importance is further seen in the fact that his outrageous and unprincipled conduct did much to precipitate the war in 70 A.D. which led to the ruin of Israel. Dummelow said: “His folly and cruelty goaded the nation into disaffection and rebellion."[24][23] W. R. Walker, op. cit., p. 75. [24] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 849. Verse 27 (Salutation - previous verse) This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman, and desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accusers also to speak against him before thee.LYSIAS’ LETTERThis is a classical example of a self-serving distortion of truth to serve selfish and political ends. “Having learned that he was a Roman …” implies that the rescue was made to prevent harm to a Roman citizen, whereas Lysias did not even know that he was a Roman until after he had illegally bound him, a fact left comfortably out of sight in his letter! The genuineness of such a document as this is evident in every nuance of it. This was politics as it was played in the Roman Empire in those days. Alas, it may be feared that the same old game goes on in the same old way in all times and places. Significantly, Paul is sent to Felix, not as a criminal, but as a fellow citizen rescued. If an honorable man had held the office then entrusted to Felix, Paul would have been released at once. Verse 31 So the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. But on the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: and they, when they came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, presented Paul also before him.Antipatris, 26 miles south of Caesarea, was rebuilt by Herod the Great in honor of his father Antipater (hence the name).[25] Plumptre gave the distance from Jerusalem as 42 miles;[26] others say it was 38. Brought him to Antipatris by night … means one of two things: (1) Paul and his escort of 470 men made a forced march in order to arrive at Antipatris the same night they left Jerusalem, or (2) that they stopped en route, arriving at Antipatris the next night. The words are capable of either construction. Came to Caesarea … Boles appropriately observed that: They entered Caesarea in daylight, and such a parade would have attracted many curious eyes. Philip and other Christians of Caesarea must have been startled to recognize the rapid fulfillment of prophecy concerning Paul’s journey to Jerusalem.[27][25] New Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 43. [26] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 158. [27] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 375. Verse 34 And when he had read it, he asked of what province he was; and when he understood that he was of Cilicia, I will hear thee fully, said he, when thine accusers also are come: and he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s palace.What province … ? This was a pertinent question to determine if Paul really came under his authority; finding he had no worry on that point, he postponed any action until he could devise some manner of turning the situation to his own profit. In Herod’s palace … Vicious criminals would not have been kept in such a palace, and therefore it may be inferred that Paul was honorably treated and given the best accommodations available for a man under detention. This was to be Paul’s home for two whole years, during which Luke would canvass the cities and villages of Galilee Judaea, Samaria, etc., preparatory to writing the Gospel of Luke. Perhaps in that work of the incomparable Luke, one may read the purpose of that strange providence which left the greatest of apostles to suffer frustration and delay under the lock and key of Felix. For the benign character of Paul’s imprisonment in Herod’s palace, however, one may be grateful and thankful to the Lord.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 231. What council was about to hear Paul? 2. In what frame of mind did he behold it? 3. Repeat his claim of conscience. 4. Would this include his persecution of Christians? 5. Can one be conscientious while doing wrung? 6. What did Ananias command to be done? 7. Was this a legal sentence? 8. State the name Paul called him. 9. What is the thought expressed thereby? 10. Also what charge did Paul make against him? 11. Tell the retort of the bystanders. 12. What ironic rebuke did Paul give Ananias? 13. State what Paul now observed of the crowd. 14. Tell what hope he mentioned now. 15. Which class would be favorable to this? 16. What resulted among the crowd? 17. How did the Pharisees reason on the matter? 18. To what danger was Paul now exposed? 19. What was done to prevent it? 20. Tell what cheering message Paul received soon. 21. What curse did certain Jews take over themselves? 22. Is there any record of their keeping it? 23. Whom did they try to draw into the plot? 24. In what way was it prevented ? 25. What did they pretend they wished to learn? 26. At what place would they meet, to learn it? 27. Was this a public place for inquiry into matters? 28. Would this give some show of truth to their plea? 29. How many were in the conspiracy ? 30. What charge was given the young man? 31. Why did the captain call two centurions ? 32. Why take Paul to Caesarea ? 33. At what time was the journey to start ? 34. Who was governor at this time? 35. Was all communication made orally? 36. State the name of the captain. 37. Was his address courteous ? 38. By whom was Paul taken? 39. What was about to happen to him ? 40. With what force did the captain rescue him? 41. Was this an orderly procedure for the captain? 42. On what fact did he act ? 43. What was Paul’s rank as a citizen? 44. Why was he brought before the council ? 45. What information resulted? 46. Upon what report is the captain now acting? 47. State his command to Paul’s accusers. 48. Where did the escort first stop ? 49. What change was now made in the escort ? 50. What is meant by the castle ? 51. State antecedent of “ who” in 33rd verse. 52. Of what province was Paul? 53. For what was the hearing to wait? 54. Where was Paul to be kept?

Acts 23:1

1 Act 23:1. No specific charge had been made against Paul, hence he had none to deny. It was appropriate, therefore, for him to make a statement to the effect that he was not conscious of any wrong ever having been committed. Paul had caused Christians to be slain and had committed general persecution against the church, yet his good conscience included that time. This proves that a man can be conscientious in doing wrong, which also gives us the conclusion that a good conscience alone will not. justify one before God.

Acts 23:2

2Act 23:2. Ananias had the common but erroneous idea that if a man is conscientious he is right. To him the statement of Paul meant that he had never done anything wrong. He thought that such an assertion from one who had been opposing Judaism so persistently was one of arrogance. Smiting one on the mouth was an act of con tempt and humiliation, and not one especially considered as a physical punishment.

Acts 23:3

3Act 23:3. Whited wall was a figure of speech that meant Ananias was a hypocrite. It was similar to the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:27. The hypocrisy of Ananias consisted in his posing as an administrator of justice under the law, and then directing an unlawful action against a prisoner who had not so much as been legally accused. It was like a judge in the courts of our land who will swear a jury to decide a case according to the law and evidence, then require it to bring in a “directed verdict.” God shall smite thee was doubtless an inspired prediction. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says Ananias was assassinated at the beginning of the last Jewish war.

Acts 23:4-5

5Acts 23:4-5. Paul agreed that the rulers of God’s people should not be spoken against, and even cited the law that forbids such a speech (Exodus 22:28). But the history of those times shows that Ananias was an evil character, who had been in difficulties with the civil authorities and had once been deposed from his office. Afterward, however, he assumed the place as president of the Sanhedrin, which is the meaning of Paul’s words “sittest thou to judge” (verse 3). Knowing him to have been a usurper, the remark of the apostle, I wist [knew] not, etc., was the apostle’s way of ignoring his assumption, thus showing him not to be entitled to the usual judicial courtesy.

Acts 23:6

6Acts 23:6. Having disposed of their quibble over the highpriesthood of Ananias, Paul used the divided condition of sentiment in the Sanhedrin to bring to the fore the fundamental principle of the Gospel, the truth of which was the basis of his diffictulties with the Jews. (See the note at Matthew 16:12 on the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.) With regard to the most important difference between these sects, the belief in the resurrection, Paul declared he was a Pharisee.

Acts 23:7

7Acts 23:7. Paul’s declaration of faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, divided the multitude and set them at variance among themselves.

Acts 23:8

8Acts 23:8. See the comments at verse 6.

Acts 23:9

9Acts 23:9. Paul’s declaration of faith had the effect he expected. The Pharisees believed in the existence of angels and spirits (verse 8), hence they were prepared to listen to Paul as an inspired man. Moreover, they have given us a point on the subject of authoritative teaching, namely, to oppose the word of an inspired man is the same as fighting against God.

Acts 23:10

0Acts 23:10. In the riot among the two sects of the Jews, their attention was turned upon Paul who was regarded as the cause of the disturbance. There was even so much indication of violence against him that the chief captain feared for his bodily safety. The reader should note that this act of soldiers under lawful direction was solely for the purpose of protecting Paul from mob violence. This should be remembered when considering the falsehoods of Tertullus in chapter 24:6, 7. Paul was removed from the Sanhedrin by the soldiers and taken into the castle for his bodily safety.

Acts 23:11

1Act 23:11. The imprisonment of Paul in the soldiers’ barracks was a friendly act as it pertained to his personal safety, but the whole situation was one of apparent danger, and one that had many discouraging phases. It was an appropriate time for the Lord to speak words of cheer to him. Bear witness also at Rome. See the comments at chapter 19:21 as to when he would bear this testimony at Rome.

Acts 23:12-13

3Act 23:12-13. A curse means some kind of harm to be wished upon one. This harm was to come upon these Jews if they ate or drank until they had killed Paul. It was a rash proposal, but there is no evidence that they stuck to it though Paul was not killed.

Acts 23:14

4Acts 23:14. They notified the chief priests of their curse, thinking it would impress them with the genuineness of their determination.

Acts 23:15

5Acts 23:15. Paul was in the castle or barracks, and these Jews suggested that the priests ask the captain to bring the prisoner before the Sanhedrin again on the pretext of a fuller hearing. That would have given them an opportunity of killing him.

Acts 23:16

6Acts 23:16. Paul’s nephew heard of the plot and told him of it.

Acts 23:17-18

8Acts 23:17-18. Paul arranged a meeting of his nephew with the captain.

Acts 23:19-20

0Acts 23:19-20. The young man first told the captain of the request that was soon to be made of him by this wicked band of 40 Jews.

Acts 23:21

1Act 23:21. The young man then told him of the plot to kill Paul if he should be allowed to appear outside the castle, and he urged him to deny their request.

Acts 23:22

2Act 23:22. The captain bound the young man to secrecy and then dismissed him, but he intended to act on behalf of Paul’s safety.

Acts 23:23

3Act 23:23. This was a military escort to conduct Paul to Caesarea, the headquarters of the Roman government in Palestine. Altogether there were 470 military men in the escort, some of whom had special services to perform. The horsemen were included to continue the guarded journey after the others returned to Jerusalem (verse 32). This journey was begun at 9 P. M. according to our time.

Acts 23:24

4Acts 23:24. Felix the governor was a ruler at Caesarea on behalf of the Roman Empire.

Acts 23:25-26

6Acts 23:25-26. Claudius Lysias was the chief captain at Jerusalem. As a judicial courtesy, he wrote a letter to Felix explaining why he was sending Paul to him.

Acts 23:27

7Acts 23:27. This part of the letter is a truthful report of the rescue of Paul by the soldiers of the captain, recorded in chapter 21:32-34.

Acts 23:28

8Acts 23:28. The captain understood that the council (Sanhedrin) was a place where the Jews held their examinations of accused persons.

Acts 23:29

9Acts 23:29. The captain regarded the dispute between Paul and the Jews to be mostly a religious one and not such as he should try.

Acts 23:30

0Acts 23:30. The court of Felix also was a secular one, but the captain felt that Paul’s personal safety required that he appear there. Besides, the Jews had intimated that Paul was a general disturber of the peace (chapter 21:28), and hence it seemed proper for the court at Caesarea to hear what the accusers had against him, they having been commanded also to appear at Caesarea for that purpose.

Acts 23:31-32

2Act 23:31-32. Antipatris was about halfway between Jerusalem and Caesarea. The entire military escort went that far, at which place it was thought that most of the danger was over. The day after leaving Jerusalem they reached that place, from which all of the escort except the horsemen started back to Jerusalem, and the horsemen conducted Paul the rest of the jorney to Caesarea.

Acts 23:33

3Act 23:33. Upon arrival, the horsemen presented Paul to the governor, and also delivered the epistle that was sent by the chief captain.

Acts 23:34

4Acts 23:34. This inquiry was to learn whether he should have jurisdiction in the case. Cilicia (the province containing the birthplace of Paul) was in such jurisdiction.

Acts 23:35

5Acts 23:35. While waiting for the accusers to appear, Paul was to be kept in a place built by Herod, but now being occupied by Felix. Some one of. the buildings attached thereto was Paul’s prison, pending the arrival of his accusers.