Chapter Twenty-Three

The Apostle Paul before the Sanhedrin (1–10). The Lord’s appearance to Paul (v. 11). The Jews’ plot to kill Paul and its exposure (12–22). The transfer of the prisoner to Caesarea, to the procurator (23–35).

Acts 23:1. Paul, looking intently at the Sanhedrin, said: men and brothers! I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day. “Looking intently at the Sanhedrin” — with a clear conscience and resolute confidence in the righteousness of his cause. “Men, brothers!” — without the addition of “and fathers,” or “rulers of the people,” as in other cases (cf. Acts 22:1). In the high awareness of his apostolic dignity, Paul places himself as it were on an equal level with these elders of the people, showing that even chains do not deprive him of this dignity and righteous standing before his judges.

Acts 23:2. The high priest Ananias ordered those standing before him to strike him on the mouth. “The high priest Ananias” — according to Josephus, a man of “proud and boorish” character (Josephus, Ant. XX, 8 ff.), the son of Nedebaeus (Ant. XX, 5, 2), successor in this office of Joseph the son of Camei (ibid., XX, 1, 3; 5, 2), predecessor of Ishmael the son of Phabi (ibid., XX, 8, 8, 11). By Quadratus, the predecessor of the then-procurator Felix, he had been sent to Rome to answer for charges brought against him (Ant. XX, 6, 2; Jewish War Jude 2:12) — and upon his return retained his office for a time, from which he was removed by Felix, who passed the office to Ishmael the son of Phabi. In character and way of life he was the most corrupt of the Sadducees of the worst period of Jewish hierarchy. History tells of his unreasonable vengeance on the Samaritans and of the far from honorable means he employed to escape the consequences of his participation in the murders carried out at that time. The Talmud, to complete this dark characterization of Ananias, adds that he was a plundering tyrant who impoverished the lower priests by his insatiable greed, cheating them of their tithes, and that he sent his favorites with clubs to beat the tithes out by force. “He ordered those standing before him to strike him on the mouth.” The priest was probably displeased by the use of the word “brothers,” admissible only in addressing equals, though Paul was fully entitled to say this, since he had himself once been a member of the Sanhedrin. It is also possible that the apostle’s words seemed to him arrogant boasting or even blasphemy, after Paul had been accused of violating the law and defiling the temple. However that may be, the high priest’s action was a clear violation of law, which could not remain without an equally strong rebuke. Not only the law was violated here, but justice itself. The purity of the apostle’s conscience was also violated, as was his personal honor as a Roman citizen — violated by the judge himself! Clearly, the apostle’s sharp words needed no justification: the circumstances themselves justified them. Moreover, the apostle “did not want to be held in contempt by the tribune” (who apparently was present, cf. Acts 23:10). “If he dared not flog him but wished to hand him over to the Jews, then when the servants struck him, Paul showed even greater boldness, turning not to the servant but to the one who had given the order” (Chrysostom).

Acts 23:3. Then Paul said to him: God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit to judge me according to the law, yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck. “God will strike you.” This is both a rebuke and a prophetic prediction that God will avenge the wrong inflicted. And indeed, a few years later, at the beginning of the Jewish War, Ananias perished at the hands of the Sicarii as a traitor (Josephus, Jewish War II, 17, 9). “You whitewashed wall!” — a figurative expression for the emptiness and baseness of apparent greatness (similar to the expression “whitewashed tomb” Matt 23:27), for the distortion of personality and hypocrisy. “He called him a whitewashed wall because, although Ananias outwardly put on the bright appearance of a man defending the law and judging according to the law, his mind was full of lawlessness. Therefore Paul exposes his hypocritical display of outward disposition toward the law” (Theophylact). Some compare Paul’s action in this case with a similar episode at the Savior’s trial, finding that Paul showed an example less worthy of imitation than that of the Savior. Thus Jerome, quoting Paul’s reproachful words, raises the question: “where then is the patience of the Savior, who, being led like a lamb to the slaughter, does not open his mouth, and so gently asks the one who struck him: if I said something wrong, show what is wrong, but if right, why do you strike me?” But who would dare pronounce judgment on the apostle’s action, comparing human self-mastery with the self-mastery of the God-man, who, suffering in the body, stood above all fleshly injustice and human weakness! Moreover, this comparison suffers from an important inaccuracy that speaks considerably in Paul’s favor: Jesus Christ, in the first place, received the blows not on the order of his judges. Had it been otherwise — had the blows been struck on the order of Caiaphas — who knows whether the Savior too would not have pointed out to him such unseemly forgetfulness of the high priest’s own dignity and the rights of a judge? And besides, one must not forget that the Lord himself, in rebuking hypocrisy and insolence, freely gave vent to his righteous anger in other cases. We must also think that Paul acted in this instance not as an ordinary person but as a messenger of God. And it is well known that the prophets had the right to rebuke everyone for their transgressions (1 Sam 18:18; 2 Sam 3:13; Isa 1:10-23; Ezek 21:25). Subsequent events showed that his rebuke was indeed delivered in a prophetic spirit. If appeal is made to the commandment of Jesus Christ about turning the right cheek when struck on the left (Matt 5:24), one must not forget that by this he requires of his followers only the avoidance of revenge, and not such silence as feeds the insolence of lawless men. Paul more truly than anyone fulfilled the will of the Lord in this respect, for he himself testified: “when reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat” (1 Cor 4:12-13). But in the present case he acted not contrary to Christ’s example, since Christ also rebuked the injustice of the one who struck him before condemnation. If Paul seemingly excuses his action afterward, it is in order to remove the suspicion that he had violated the law forbidding one to speak ill of the high priest (Innocent, Bishop of Kherson).

Acts 23:5. Paul said: I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest; for it is written: you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest!” This admission by the apostle of not knowing the high priest strikes many as astonishing. Yet there is nothing astonishing in it. The high priest was new to Paul (having entered office much later after his conversion, around 48 A.D.), and Paul, although he sometimes visited Jerusalem, could have had neither the motive nor the interest to make his personal acquaintance, though he might have known his name. It is quite possible that even in the assembly itself it was difficult to recognize an unfamiliar high priest, since he could be identified by his distinctive vestments only during the liturgical service (cf. note to Matt 26:65). Nor was it always possible to recognize the high priest by his presiding seat, which was not the high priest’s indefeasible right, since the Sanhedrin had the right to elect its own co-president (cf. note to John 11:49). Be that as it may, Paul’s sincerity leaves no room for doubt. Moreover, the acknowledgment of his ignorance regarding the high priest was not a denial of the force of what Paul had said. In stating that he would not have said these words out of respect for the dignity of the high priest, he nevertheless makes clear that he reserves the right to repeat them regarding the action itself, without regard to the person. Thus the lesson given to lawlessness retains its full force and significance. “For it is written...” — that is, if I had known he was the high priest, I would not have said it, “for it is written...” etc. (Ex. 22 according to the LXX).

Acts 23:6. Paul, perceiving that one part was Sadducees and the other Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin: men and brothers! I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; I am being judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. “Paul perceiving.” Probably by some external features and through a distant acquaintance with certain members, Paul noticed the artificially maintained cohesion of his judges, despite the irreconcilably extreme contradiction of their religious convictions, and this led him to the fortunate idea of shifting his question to another ground on which the absence of unanimity in the prejudice against him would first of all be exposed. With remarkable composure, penetrating insight, and wisdom, by a single bold turn of thought and speech, he dissolves the assembly into mutually canceling elements, drawing to his own side the stronger of the two dominant parties — the Pharisaic. “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” — (in some manuscripts: the son of Pharisees) — that is, not only a Pharisee by personal conviction, but by nature, a hereditary natural-born Pharisee, in whom not only the convictions but also the flesh and blood of the ancient Pharisees live on. By this admission the apostle not only separated himself from that part of the assembly (the Sadducean part) that allowed itself to deny certain truths of the Mosaic law (Acts 23:8), but also drew into battle, so to speak, the other right-believing part (the Pharisaic), indicating the most sensitive point of discord from which it was necessary to begin. “I am being judged for the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” The translation of the original in this passage suffers from an important inaccuracy. In the Greek text this passage reads: περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι, more accurately rendered by the Slavonic text than the Russian: «о уповании и воскресении мертвых аз суд приемлю» — “concerning hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged.” Since the word “hope” (expectation, trust) had a specialized meaning and referred to the Messiah and Messianic expectations (cf. Luke 2:33), Paul’s expression primarily wants to say that he stands before judgment on account of the Hope of Israel — the Messiah (cf. Acts 26:6). As for the second part of the charge — “the resurrection of the dead” — what is meant here is, of course, first of all the Christian faith in the resurrection of the Savior, and then also the general faith in “the resurrection of the dead” following the example of this already risen “Firstborn from the dead.” In both parts of the charge Paul points only to the common elements shared with Pharisaic teaching, independently of the Christian understanding of the matter — which is how he achieves the passionate defense of himself in the quarrel that ignited on this ground. A matchlessly wise and skillful maneuver! The best and most powerful defense!

Acts 23:7. When he said this, a dispute arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:8. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all of these. “A dispute arose” — from what follows (Acts 23:9) it is clear that the dispute was violent and intense, fully justifying Paul’s hopes. “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit,” with the teaching about which the teaching on resurrection is closely linked. Cf. note to Matt 3:7; more detailed information about the sects is given by Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 1, 4; Jewish War Jude 2:8.

Acts 23:9. A great outcry arose; and the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and argued vigorously, saying: we find nothing wrong with this man; and if a spirit or an angel spoke to him, let us not fight against God. “The scribes of the Pharisaic party” — that is, the representatives of Pharisaic learning (cf. note to Matt 5:20) who were at the assembly not only took Paul’s side but also pointedly needled the opposing party with the admission of the possibility that Paul spoke at the prompting of the angels or spirit denied by the Sadducees. Evidently, the Pharisees knew about the circumstances of Paul’s conversion (perhaps having been informed during the course of the session), and their expression — “if a spirit or an angel spoke to him” — presents a free rendering of his account of the appearance and words of the Lord to him. “Let us not fight against God...” This phrase is not found in all ancient manuscripts, and its absence gives the preceding sentence a somewhat different shade of meaning, acceptable even with the passage read in its entirety. The Greek construction of the sentence fully allows and seems even to require an independent reading of the first part of the utterance: εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ, ἢ ἄγγελος — “but what if a spirit spoke to him or an angel?” What is implied, of course, is that which perhaps subsequently appeared in the text as an explanation: μὴ θεομαχῶμεν — let us not fight against God!

Acts 23:10. But as the dissension grew violent, the tribune, fearing that Paul would be torn apart by them, ordered the soldiers to go down and take him from among them by force and bring him into the fortress. “Fearing that Paul would be torn apart.” The dispute had reached such a degree of vehemence and exasperation that the tribune began to have not unfounded fears lest Paul become the victim of the mutual exasperation of the parties — lest the party hostile to him, the Sadducean, rush upon the apostle in its rage to inflict harm on him, while the other, temporarily well-disposed toward him, the Pharisaic, rush to his defense — and in the process literally tear Paul apart. “Ordered the soldiers to go down” — from the Antonian fortress to the place of session of the Sanhedrin, probably in the court of the Gentiles at the temple. The tribune now had a twofold duty to protect Paul’s safety: as a guardian of public order, and as a protector of the rights of Roman citizenship.

Acts 23:11. The following night the Lord appeared to him and said: take courage, Paul; for as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome. “Appearing to him” — how? in sleep or in a state of ecstasy (cf. Acts 22:17-18) — the text does not say. The words of the Lord who appeared to Paul both encourage him not to fear the Jews and foretell the continuation of his beloved preaching ministry in the very center of the pagan world — Rome. This is both the best protection of the prisoner and the best consolation for him.

Acts 23:12. When day came, some of the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves by an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. “Some of the Jews” — probably among the former Asian persecutors of Paul (Acts 21:27), not without the encouragement and assistance of his new enemies, the Sadducees. “Bound themselves by an oath” — placed upon themselves a vow with an oath, that is, calling down a curse upon themselves from God if they should taste food without having accomplished their intention. Such a formula of an oath contains in itself the strongest possible inducement to the immediate and unpreventable realization of the undertaking.

Acts 23:14. They came to the chief priests and elders and said: we have bound ourselves by a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. “To the chief priests and elders” — undoubtedly of the high-priestly party. Its agreement and approval was sufficient to persuade the Sanhedrin to a second convening on Paul’s case. For this it was enough to appeal to the one high priest alone, capable, according to the testimony of Josephus, of any crime whatsoever.

Acts 23:16. The son of Paul’s sister heard about this plot, came and entered the fortress, and informed Paul. “The son of Paul’s sister.” Nothing further is known about him beyond what is said here. “Having entered the fortress.” Evidently, after declaring his Roman citizenship the apostle was kept in the fortress without particular strictness, so that relatives could have access to him; the same was the case in Caesarea afterward (Acts 24:23), and in Rome itself (Acts 28:16).

Acts 23:17. Paul, summoning one of the centurions, said: take this young man to the tribune, for he has something to tell him. In order not to disclose the matter, which required as much secrecy as possible, the apostle does not speak of it to the centurion but asks him to lead his nephew directly to the tribune, so that only three people knew of the plot against Paul’s life — Paul himself, his nephew, and the tribune (Acts 23:22). “It is worthy of admiration,” says Chrysostom, “how Paul was not troubled and did not say: but then what did Christ say to me? (Acts 23:11) No, he neither thought nor felt anything like that, but only believed. Yet while believing, he did not remain idle and did not fail to do what could be done with the help of human wisdom.”

Acts 23:18. He, taking him, brought him to the tribune and said: the prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you, who has something to say to you. “The prisoner Paul” — despite the relative ease of his confinement, Paul remains a prisoner in view of the uncertain importance and degree of his guilt.

Acts 23:19. The tribune took him by the hand and, going aside privately with him, asked: what is it that you have to tell me? “Took him by the hand” — an expression of friendliness, encouragement, and readiness to give careful attention to what was said. “Going aside privately with him” — to preserve the secret better.

Acts 23:23. And calling two centurions, he said: prepare two hundred foot soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to march to Caesarea at the third hour of the night. “Two hundred soldiers” — meaning foot soldiers with full armor, as distinct from the mounted soldiers and lightly-armed spearmen. The apostle’s escort thus consisted of 400 infantry and 70 cavalry. A not excessive precaution, warranted by the hardly smaller number of Paul’s enraged enemies. “At the third hour of the night” — by our reckoning, from 9 o’clock in the evening. Such an order was given partly because in those hot lands it is more convenient to travel at night, and partly for greater security against the Jews, for which reason speed was also required (Acts 23:31).

Acts 23:24. Also provide animals so that they may put Paul on them and bring him safely to the governor Felix. In Lysias’s order to transport Paul on animals one can see his concern for the apostle’s comfort and ease of travel, and from this his favorable disposition toward him. “The governor Felix” — the then Roman procurator of Judea, a freedman of the Emperor Claudius, brother of the favorite of Nero, Pallas, son-in-law of Herod Agrippa I (see note to Acts 12:1). He received the procuratorship from Claudius after the replacement of Cumanus, around 53 A.D., exercising “the powers of a king in the spirit of a slave,” to use Tacitus’s phrase (Histories V, 9). There was no crime he was incapable of. He was accused even of personal participation in robberies, in league with the zealots and hardened brigands.

Acts 23:27. This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them; I came with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen. “Rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen.” The junior officer here deliberately indulges in a written lie in order to ingratiate himself and cover up his rash action toward the apostle — since he had in fact learned of his civil rights only after bringing him into the fortress, when he had wanted to flog the apostle (Acts 22:24-29). This small but characteristic detail in the letter is undoubtedly evidence of its authenticity.

Acts 23:29. and I found that he was accused in matters of dispute about their law, but that there was no charge against him deserving of death or imprisonment. “In matters of dispute” — Acts 23:6-9.

Acts 23:30. And when it was disclosed to me that there was a plot against this man, I sent him to you at once, also ordering his accusers to state their case against him before you. Farewell. “Ordering his accusers to state their case before you.” Clearly, in fulfillment of this order, not previously mentioned, Paul’s accusers soon appear before the procurator (Acts 24 ff.).

Acts 23:31. So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. “Antipatris” — built by Herod I in honor of his father Antipater, on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, about 60 versts from Jerusalem and 35 from Caesarea.

Acts 23:32. And the next day, leaving the horsemen to go on with him, they returned to the fortress. “The next day” — as is evident, the march was made with all possible haste, for the sake of the prisoner’s safety. “Leaving the horsemen to continue.” Beyond Antipatris, near Caesarea, the residence of the procurator, Paul’s safety could be considered secure — which is why the excess troops returned to the Jerusalem fortress.

Acts 23:34. The governor, having read the letter, asked from what province he was, and learning that he was from Cilicia, he said: “From what province he was?” — this is indeed not mentioned in Lysias’s report.

Acts 23:35. I will hear you when your accusers arrive. And he ordered him to be kept under guard in Herod’s praetorium. “I will hear you when your accusers arrive.” This refers to a detailed official judicial interrogation, as distinct from the preliminary, brief, and informal exchange, which perhaps consisted of the single question mentioned. “In Herod’s praetorium.” The palace built by Herod I, in which the procurators lived. Thus Paul was not imprisoned in a dungeon together with ordinary prisoners, but was kept under guard in the same house where the procurator himself lived. Probably the good word for the prisoner in Lysias’s letter contributed to such a comparatively lenient treatment of him. The author of Acts later directly notes that after the interrogation of Paul in the presence of his accusers the procurator gives a specific order “not to hinder the prisoner” (Acts 24:23).