Latest Blog Posts

The tribune wants to know the truth, so he ordered the council to meet (22:30). Luke’s account of Paul before the Sanhedrin begins to shift the story away from Paul in Jerusalem to Paul in Roman custody.

Luke’s report in Acts 23  is sometimes thought to be inaccurate. When soldiers learned that Paul was a citizen, they would immediately remove his chains. As Barrett says, Luke is not writing a police report, “he wishes to indicate that Paul appeared before the Council as a free man” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1053). That the commander could order the Sanhedrin to meet is another question. Did a Roman tribune have the authority to order the Jewish council to meet? This may be an informal meeting, but the tribune wants the local Jewish authorities to sort out what happened and report back to him. The phrase γνῶναι τὸ ἀσφαλές might be better rendered “to know the facts.”

Would a Roman tribune abandon a citizen to the local authorities? Probably not, but the council was not asked to decide his case, but to “find out the truth.” They may have been eager to help because it could lead to Paul’s removal. Although the Roman tribune was not in the meeting, he was close enough to intervene if there was trouble.

Paul immediately announces to his fellow Jews that he has fulfilled all his obligations under the Law. “Even his persecution of the church had been carried out with good conscience; it was, as he thought, his bounden duty (cf. 26:9)’ (Barrett, Acts, 2:424).” With this statement, he claims to have kept every bit of the ceremonial law that this body held sacred. Paul says this again in Acts 24:16 and Philippians 3:6-9. Paul, as a Jew, was a righteous Jew. This is a bold claim considering why he is there in the first place.

The high priest Ananias orders Paul struck for blasphemy (23:2). The high priest considers Paul’s words to be blasphemy and orders the guard to smack Paul in the mouth. The high priest is Ananias, son of Nedebeus. Josephus reports that Ananias was one of the most evil and greediest of the High Priests (Ant. 20:206-13). He was appointed high priest by Herod of Chalcis and held the office AD 47-59 (R. F. O’Toole, “Ananias (Person),” ABD 1:224-25). Ananias, son of Nedebeus, seized the tithes that should have gone to the common priests for himself, keeping the average priest in poverty. He was sent to Rome under suspicion of helping start riots between Jews and Samaritans. He was cleared of the charges and restored to office by the emperor Claudius, primarily because he had the support of Herod Agrippa II.

Ironically, this man thinks Paul was being blasphemous. (Imagine Richard Nixon accusing you of being a liar!) He thinks Paul’s words are a boast. Paul could not have maintained a good conscience regarding the Law.

Paul curses the High Priest, then apologizes (23:3-5). Paul lashes back at Ananias with venom, saying that God will strike him and calling him a whitewashed wall. Is this a curse on Ananias? In the Old Testament, the idea of God “striking” usually means he is judging, as when he “struck” Egypt with plagues. A whitewashed wall refers to an old, crumbling wall. This may allude to Ezekiel 13:14 (cf. CD 8:12). Jesus called the teachers of the Law “whitewashed tombs” (Matt 23:27). Paul believes this man who ordered him to be struck was a hypocrite. The parallel in Luke 11:44 has “unmarked graves, not whitewashed tombs.

Does Paul’s reaction violate Jesus’ command against retaliation? When he was struck, Jesus did not retaliate. John 18:22; Find the Luke verse here. 1 Peter 2:23: “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

The people who hear Paul’s words are horrified at his attitude toward the high priest. According to Exodus 22:28, the people were not to speak ill of their leaders in any circumstances. (Hopefully, this is one of those verses we can say is “under Law…! “)

How could Paul not know this was the High Priest? Some have interpreted Paul’s words here ironically (Calvin, Augustine) or even in sarcasm. It would have been unusual for Paul not to be able to tell who the High Priest was in the group, unless the hastily organized meeting meant the HP was not wearing some sign of his office (not the full regalia, that would not be appropriate for this meeting). The most likely explanation is that Paul was not familiar with Ananias, since he had not been in Jerusalem regularly in twenty years. Remember, there is no nightly news service that carries the man’s photograph every night.

Paul’s words of apology show that he did not knowingly offend the high priest, but the blow was enough to convince Paul that this was a hostile crowd, so he changed tactics, claiming to be on trial because he believed in the resurrection.

When Paul says God sent him to the Gentiles, the already angry crowd begins to demand that he be killed. Why does Paul’s prophetic vision receive such a violent reaction?

Because they shout and throw dust cloaks into the air, it appears that they take Paul’s speech as blasphemy.

Rather than accomplishing his goal (reconciliation with the Jewish crowd), he has angered them even more.  The seeds of the nationalistic rebellion against Rome are already present in Jerusalem in the late 50s. The revolt begins only about eight years after this event. The nationalistic fervor that fuels that rebellion is already at work in the Temple.

Paul is taken to be interrogated by the Romans, who likely have no idea what he has said to the crowd. Typical interrogation by the Romans included torture, but only after other means failed to turn up the facts. This is not a punishment but a method of extracting the truth during the “fact-finding” portion of Paul’s trial.  Since Paul is to be flogged, the commander seems to have assumed that Paul is, in fact, a troublemaker, and he wants to get to the facts immediately.

While they were preparing him for this, Paul mentions that he was a Roman citizen. Why does he wait until he is arrested, bound, and about to be flogged?  Paul may have waited to put the Roman soldiers in a difficult position, but they must now make amends for withholding Paul’s rights as a citizen.

The centurion in charge of the interrogation immediately reported to Tribune Claudius Lysias that Paul was a Roman citizen. The tribune says he “bought his citizenship for a large sum” (22:27 ESV). Could someone actually purchase a citizenship? Mark Anthony sold Roman citizenships, and later Claudius’s wife, Messalina, sold citizenships (Cicero, Philippicae, II, 92; V, 11-12). The Philippics (or Philippicae) are fourteen speeches (44-42 BC) condemning Mark Anthony after the assassination of Julius Caesar. Tarja, The Trial of Paul, 82). Suetonius tells a story about Nero granting citizenship certificates to some young Greek dancers because he liked their performance (Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Roman Society, 146-149). (See this post on the possibility Paul was from a wealthy family.)

Paul was born a citizen. Likely, Paul’s citizenship was granted to his father or grandfather for services rendered to the empire, possibly as slaves. While this is speculative, many scholars have suggested that his family served as tentmakers in the military. Paul had a higher social status than a Roman tribune. Paul has dual citizenship from Tarsus and Rome. He was born a Roman citizen rather than having purchased it. In addition, Paul is well educated (speaking Greek and Aramaic) and may come from a wealthy family.

Paul’s citizenship is indeed a serious problem for the Romans responsible. Cicero said, “To bind a Roman citizen is a crime, to flog him is an abomination, to slay him almost an act of murder” (Verrine Orations, 2.5.66, cited by Witherington, Acts, 677-78).

Paul’s Roman citizenship is important for the rest of the story because it determines who will hear Paul’s case and decide his fate (Rome, not the Jews). Paul’s treatment throughout the rest of the book of Acts is based on Paul’s legal status as a Roman citizen.