The warnings to Paul that he would face trouble in Jerusalem have now materialized. A Jewish mob wanted to injure him when they “heard” that he had brought a Gentile into the Temple. After the Romans got involved because of the disturbance, the commander allowed him to speak to the Jews assembled. Paul spoke to them in Hebrew, and the crowd remained calm until Paul said that Gentiles were also to become God’s people.
Paul in Roman Custody
Read Acts 22b-29
- How did the crowd respond to Paul’s mentioning of Gentiles?
- What is the significance of those gestures?
- How does Paul being a Roman citizen protect him in this situation?
Scourging: a form of punishment where someone was bound in a stooping position with his hands tied behind his back and whipped. The Roman scourge was made of leather strips tipped with bone or metal fragments designed to tear open the skin. Flogging injuries could be crippling or even fatal.
Roman law protected a citizen from such an interrogation method without a trial (Acts 16:37-38) and gave the citizen a right to appeal to the supreme tribunal at Rome (Acts 25:11-12). For Roman citizens, one could only be legally scourged if he had been found guilty of a crime.
Paul and the High Priest, Ananias
Read Acts 22:30-23:5
- Since the Roman commander couldn’t legally scourge Paul to learn the facts (Acts 21:34) relating to the Jewish anger toward him, what does the commander do?
- What does the high priest find unacceptable about Paul? (Acts 23:1)
Deuteronomy 1:16-17: “I [Moses] commanded your [the Israelites] judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases that your people bring and judge fairly, whether between one citizen and another or a citizen and a resident foreigner. Be impartial in your decisions, but hear the lowly and the great alike. Do not be intimidated by anyone because judgment belongs to God.’”
Exodus 22:28: Do not to blaspheme God or curse a ruler of your people.
Ananias the High Priest: He was High Priest from 47 to 59 AD. He had a reputation as a cruel, greedy, and violent man. Historian Josephus wrote that Ananias had much wealth (Antiquities of the Jews, 20:206) and that his servants would take tithes meant for the common priests (Antiquities of the Jews, 20:213-214). The Talmud (a collected Jewish oral tradition, 200 AD, and commentary, 500 AD) spoke of Ananias’ greed: “He did not scruple to use violence and assassination to further his interests.” Josephus also noted that Ananias was so unloved that dagger men (sacarii) assassinated him when the Israelites began to revolt against Rome in 66 AD (Jewish War, 2:441-442)
- Why didn’t Paul recognize who the High Priest was in the Sanhedrin?
- How did the high Priest and Paul both err?
- What are the similarities in their responses? What are the differences?
Whitewashed wall: The imagery for this expression came from Ezekiel Chapter 13:
My [God] hand will oppose the prophets who see false visions and speak deceptive divinations. They won’t be included in the council of my people, nor be written in the registry of the house of Israel or enter Israel’s land. Then you’ll know that I am the Lord YHWH.
They have led my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace. When someone builds a flimsy wall, they cover it with whitewash. Tell those who cover it with whitewash that it will fall. Rain will pour down, hailstones will fall, and stormy winds will break it to pieces. When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, “Where is your whitewash now?” [Ezekiel 13:9-12]
“Whitewashed wall” carried the idea that despite the outside looking fine, the inside was not. But more that, that expression also conveyed that someone who was a “whitewashed wall” was outside God’s Covenant, despite appearances.
Jesus used “whitewashed tomb” in Matthew 23:27 to describe the Pharisees. By replacing “wall” with “tomb” Jesus amplified the expression to point to Pharisees as being more than false teachers, but even purveyors of death.
Paul Speaks to All the Sanhedrin
Read Acts 23:6-8
- How does Paul use the theological divisions within Judaism to his advantage?
- When Paul says “It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial,” how truthful is he?
And as a “copula”: In Koine Greek, the “and” (kai) often acts as a copula, joining two thoughts into one idea. Thus, when Paul said, “It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead,” he was not speaking of two different things, “hope” being one, the “resurrection” being another. No, “hope” and “resurrection” go together: The Christian hope is the resurrection of the dead; the resurrection of the dead gives us hope. For that reason, many translations use “of” or “in” instead of “and,” which is a more-accurate translation in meaning.
But when translations do that, it leaves the other New-Testament uses of “and” to become the default understanding of “and” in current-day English usage, which denotes two separate things, which may or may not be related. When that happens, for example in Matthew 28:19-20, we then see baptism and teaching as two separate things instead of understanding both as being conjoined: we baptize toward teaching, we teach toward baptism. When Paul describes being saved as confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart, he doesn’t describe two separate events or activities. Instead, he says that faith is believing and confessing (Romans 10:9-10).
Excursus: Pharisees and Sadducees
Pharisees
The predecessors to the Pharisees, the Chasidim, first banded together following Israel’s return from their Babylonian exile. They formed to encourage one another in the study and practice of God’s Law. Because remaining true to God’s Law meant much to them, they joined with the Maccabees against the Seleucids (circa 160 BC) who tried to force the Jews to become culturally and religiously Greek.
The name Chasidim is based on a Hebrew root word, chesed, which means “loyal, faithful, and enduring love.” This group wanted to be loyal and faithful to God. These Chasidim were not interested in the politics of the Maccabees, as long as they strictly observed the Law of Moses.
Later, when descendants of the Maccabees become priests serving in the Temple, the Chasidim withdrew their support. They then became known as the Perushim, or “separated ones,” from which we get the word “Pharisee.” We first hear the term “Pharisee” used during the reign of John Hyrcanus (ruled, 134-104 BC); however, Josephus mentions the Pharisees already existing in 150 BC.
Among the Jewish groups, the Pharisees were closest to the teachings of Jesus and Christianity. They believed in (1) an afterlife, (2) the immortality of the soul, (3) the resurrection of the body, and (4) the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:6-8).
Since they were synagogue-based, they often used the Greek Septuagint as their Scriptures, which meant that they accepted all the books of the Old Testament, including the books of Apocrypha. However, the Pharisees also believed that Moses received a second revelation from God, which interpreted the first and also contained additional laws. This oral Law, as it was not written down, was handed down from father to son, and was only later was preserved in written form. The Pharisees were diligent in wanting to follow this oral tradition, as well.
However, their myopic concern for ritual exactness and outward observance kept them from “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matthew 23:23). Further, the Pharisees’ civic religiosity (they had linked their understanding of Judaism with Jewish nationalism) kept them from being able to accept a Messiah that did not include earthly liberation from Rome.
During the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, a rabbi named Johanan ben Zakkai survived and started a rabbinical school in Yavne (Jamnia), about 40 miles north of Jerusalem. This surviving school became the leading light in Judaism, which helped the Jews adapt their beliefs into a religion that needed no Temple, which even further changed and adapted into rabbinic Judaism.
Sadducees
The Sadducees emerged as a religious and political-interest group in the 2nd century BC, also around the time of the Maccabees. In Jesus’ day, they were the 2nd-largest religious group in Judea (the Pharisees being the largest). Their name is derived from the High Priest Zadok, who served under King Solomon (1 Kings 2:35) and whose descendants were granted exclusive rights to serve in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40:46). Because the Sadducees were closely associated with the Temple (Acts 4:1; 5:17), their base of power was their control of the Temple.
The Sadducees were the proud upper class of Hebrew society. They prided themselves on their wealth, social connections, and ancestry. Josephus wrote that the Sadducees only welcomed into their group “the rich, and do not have the general populace favorably disposed to them, whereas the Pharisees have the multitude on their side” (Antiquities of the Jews, 13:10, 6)
Unlike the Pharisees, the Sadducees expressly denied: (1) an afterlife with rewards and punishments for the righteous and wicked, (2) the immortality of the soul, (3) the resurrection of the body, and (4) the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:6-8).
The Sadducees also denied the oral tradition that the Pharisees tried to uphold; they also denied authority to any scripture text except the Pentateuch (the Torah), the first five books of the Bible (Genesis-Deuteronomy). They also did not believe in a prophesied Messiah as the Pharisees did.
After 70 AD, the Sadducees disappeared, having all been killed by the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem.
———–
Read Acts 23:9-11
- What happened between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
- What happened to Paul when a fight broke out?
- What two purposes do we see for Jesus coming to Paul the following night?
The Plot to Take Paul’s Life
Read Acts 23:13-15
Luke does not say, but these 40 men who plotted to kill Paul were probably dagger men, sicarii. Their aim, method, and oath fit their pattern.
- What’s the ruse to kill Paul?
Read Acts 23:16-22
- How do the Roman authorities become aware of the plot to murder Paul?
- Based on what Paul’s nephew tells the Roman Chiliarch, did the Sanhedrin consent to the plan?
Read Acts 23:23-24
- Does the Roman Chiliarch believe the murder plot to be real?
- How does he respond?
To be continued.
