Book of Acts

Claudius Lysias sends about half of the soldiers in his command to escort Paul to the Roman governor, Felix (23:23-24). Caesarea is about seventy miles by road, so the trip should take at least 2 days. The trip to Caesarea was fast, covering thirty-five miles to Antipatris (a military station on the Judean/Samarian border) and the rest of the twenty-seven miles by cavalry. This underscores the urgency of the threat.

Jerusalem was no place for the trial of an unpopular Jew who was also a Roman citizen, and no doubt Claudius Lysias would be glad to hand on the explosive package that had been thrust upon him. (C. K. Barrett, Acts, 2:1077).

Paul’s escort is quite large: Two hundred soldiers, two centuries, if at full strength, plus seventy horsemen and two hundred. How likely is an escort of 470 soldiers (Western text has 500 total)? Martin Hengel, however, quotes Josephus, War 2:540-53, to illustrate the dangers on the roads in Palestine, which justify a large military escort. Maybe the troops needed to be repositioned anyway, so Paul joined a force that was already on the move. Would Rome provide a mount for Paul to ride? (23:24). It is possible the text is confused (it could be a donkey). Luke’s point here is that Rome is treating Paul as an honored citizen, protecting him and providing for his needs. If the whole group is moving quickly, Paul needs to ride something to keep up.

Scholars will occasionally object to the distance covered in so short a time, but other texts indicate that Roman soldiers could cover considerable territory in a short time. The first leg of the trip is almost entirely downhill.

What about Paul’s companions? It would be at least two more days before they arrive in Caesarea, since they are not part of the military entourage.

Lysias prepared a letter to explain the need to transfer Paul to Caesarea (23:25-30). Does this letter contain the truth? The situation is not explained fully; he rescued Paul from an angry crowd and protected him because he was a citizen, but he leaves out the fact that he did not learn he was a citizen until he was about to have him beaten. Perhaps Luke included the letter to give a bit of comic relief to the reader at this point in the story (Witherington, Acts, 700).

What is the source of this letter? We know that Luke was with Paul for most of the two years in Caesarea; it is therefore not unlikely that he had the opportunity to discover the gist of what happened during Paul’s arrest and transfer. The letter is more about Lysias covering himself from any mishandling of Paul’s case.

• Paul is a Roman citizen and under Felix’s jurisdiction (not Lysias’s as Tribune in Jerusalem).
• His rescue is due to Roman power (so Lysias did the right thing rescuing him).
• No Roman offense was committed (so Lysias was right not to torture him).
• The charge stems from internal Jewish theological arguments (not Roman law).

Ben Witherington (following E. A. Judge) suggested that Luke had access to the actual letter (Witherington, Acts, 698). This would be required by the word τύπος used in this verse. Felix likely had the letter loud. Luke could have been present with Paul when it was read. In addition, this sort of letter would have been part of Paul’s legal record and preserved by Felix and later Festus as part of the transfer to Rome. It is entirely likely that Luke had a look at the letter during the two years at Caesarea or on the journey to Rome.

Like Tertullus’s speech in Acts 24:1-9, Paul’s response to the charges against him is also a masterpiece of legal rhetoric. Paul demonstrates that he is a well-educated and eloquent man, able to hold his own in a hearing before a powerful Roman governor. Paul uses proper rhetoric for addressing Felix (24:10). Paul waits for Felix to recognize him, then Paul says he knows Felix’s leadership and says he will cheerfully make his defense.

Herod’s Palace in Caesarea

First, Paul explains the riot in Jerusalem (24:11-13). He says he was in the Temple worshiping God, not disputing or stirring up the crowds. He did not make any disturbance in the temple, synagogue, or anywhere in the city. In fact, Tertullus cannot prove the charges he has brought.

Second, Paul claims to be a loyal follower of the Law (24:14-17). He worships the God of their fathers, specifically as a part of “the way.” This name for Christianity in Luke, possibly reflecting Jesus’ statement that he is the “way, the truth, and the life.”

Third, he believes “everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets” (24:14-15). Paul has a hope in the resurrection. This is the point Paul made in his defense before the Sanhedrin. The High Priest and the elders present are Sadducees and do not believe in a resurrection; therefore, they attack him on the point of Jewish doctrine. Perhaps Paul connects himself to the Pharisees because of their political life in previous years.

Fourth, Paul was in Jerusalem to give alms when he was accused by Asian Jews (24:17-21). He was only there a few days, presenting offerings. Giving alms is something a devout follower of God does; Jews are expected to take care of the poor and needy; a righteous man does these things! The Asian Jews found him purified in the Temple, without a crowd or tumult

Finally, Paul points out his accusers are not present (24:18-20). This is the key part of his defense since, as a Roman citizen, he has the right to face his accusers. Since these Asian Jews  Paul maintains his defense before the Sanhedrin that he is under arrest because he believes in the resurrection (24:21). The Sadducees disagree with him on a theological point that has nothing to do with Roman Law. This is similar to Gallio’s conclusion in Acts 18. This is a matter for the Jewish courts, not Rome.

Paul’s defense is simple: the charges are not true. The accusers are not present, and he is only under arrest because of a Jewish theological dispute that ought not concern the Romans. Like a modern politician, Felix decides not to decide not to decide (24:22).

Why does Felix think that Paul might bribe him? Perhaps he thinks that since Paul brought money from Asia to give to the poor Jews in Jerusalem, he also has money for bribes.  Another possibility is that Paul had more wealth than is usually thought. He must pay for his own needs while in Caesarea, indicating some access to wealth, and we know that he rents rooms in Rome. It is possible that Paul had property that could be sold or other family wealth that gave Felix hope of a bribe.

When Paul announces that he is a Pharisee and claims to be on trial because of the resurrection (Acts 23:6), a near riot breaks out in the Sanhedrin. After Paul explains God told him to go to the Gentiles in a vision in the Temple, some zealous Jews plot to kill Paul (Acts 22:12-22). By claiming to be a Pharisee, Paul gains the favor of the Pharisees while enraging the Sadducees. The argument that ensues is so fierce that the Roman official thinks Paul will be “torn to pieces,” and so he takes him back to the barracks, leaving the Jews to their “theological dispute.

Some commentators criticize Paul for his claim to be a Pharisee. Paul’s argument is not honest (that is not why he is on trial). He instigates a near riot between the two factions of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees were a minority in the Sanhedrin but a popular and vocal minority. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, angels, spirits, etc. The Sadducees denied many of these things, preferring a more secular political interpretation. They were the politicians.

But is it true that Paul was a Pharisee at this point in his life? Paul may not a “practicing Pharisee” since contact with the Gentiles might break purity traditions according to the Pharisees. Yet, concerning the issue of the resurrection of the dead, he was indeed a Pharisee. He agreed with their side of that argument, and for the Pharisees, this was a key point of division with the Sadducees. For many, Paul is simply stating that he agrees with this central point, and for the Pharisees, at this moment, it is enough for them to defend Paul.

A group of more than forty Jews vows to kill Paul (23:12-15). This is a strong response, but it is not unexpected after the events in the Temple. The Jews who beat Paul in the Temple were zealous for the Temple (and zeal is something you do with a knife). Paul was accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple, and in his defense, he claims to have had a vision in the Temple itself, sending him to the Gentiles. The riot only gets worse when Paul claims God sent him to the Gentiles in a vision while worshiping in the Temple.

The group has gathered as part of a plot (συστροφή). The word is associated with a gathering for seditious purposes (Witherington, Acts, 694, citing Polybius, History, 4.34.6). This zealous group could be associated with the Sicarii, assassins active during Felix’s governorship. At the very least, this is another example of zeal for ancestral traditions resulting in violence. While this seems like a rather bold vow, it is possible to get out of such an oath if the circumstances change to make it impossible (m. Ned. 3.3). Since Paul has admitted that his ministry was to the Gentiles, and he believed that he was functioning as the messianic “light to the Gentiles.” This was treated as treason by these zealots!

Paul is warned and then protected by the Romans (23:16-22). In fact, he was warned by “Paul’s sister’s son,” Paul’s nephew (23:16-22). It is possible to render this verse “he heard the plotting having been present…” implying that Paul’s nephew was at the meeting when these men took the oath. This may hint that Paul had family members involved in radical, revolutionary politics.

Paul’s nephew might have been in Jerusalem for his education in the same way that Paul had been sent to Jerusalem for his education. On the other hand, some of Paul’s family may have been living in Jerusalem. The Greek νεανίας can refer to a man aged 20 to 40, though in 23:17 he is called a νεανίας, implying someone older than a teenager, no more than 28 years of age.

Remarkably, there is no reference to anyone else rising to defend Paul, either James and his group (which included Pharisees and priests, people who would surely have heard of this kind of plot) or Peter and the other Apostles. It is possible that the Twelve were no longer in Jerusalem, but James might have been able to stop Paul’s arrest by stating that he was not in the Temple with any Gentiles. It is ironic that Paul is protected by Roman authorities and will be in Roman custody for the rest of the book of Acts.

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.