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.

This account of Paul’s vision in the Temple is new information that was not found in the earlier part of Acts. In Acts 9, Ananias tells Paul that God is sending him to the Gentiles. But in Acts 22, Paul does not say Ananias told him about his commission, but God himself tells Paul this while Paul was worshiping in the temple. This is a significant change Paul may have made to appeal to the audience: Jews who worship in the Temple. Paul emphasizes this vision because he was in the Temple praying when he received it. How could he now be accused of desecrating the Temple?

Paul says that he “fell into a trance.” This word “trance” is usually translated as “amazed” or “astonished”, but in this passage and in Acts 10-11, it is clearly used to describe a state of viewing something supernatural, such as Peter’s divine calling. There may be a reason for using this phrase here, to parallel what happened to Paul with what eventually happened to Peter in Acts 10.

The content of this vision is a warning that he will not have success among the people of Jerusalem. Because of this, scholars often draw parallels between Paul’s experience here and Isaiah’s vision in Isaiah 6. Both occur while they are praying in the temple, and both are told they will not have success. But this is where the parallels end. Isaiah remains in Jerusalem and continues his ministry, knowing that a righteous remnant remains in the city. Paul is explicitly told to leave the city.

When did Paul receive this vision (in the chronology of Acts)? Acts 9:29-30 indicates Paul came to Jerusalem briefly and tried to reason with the “Grecian Jews.” This threatened Paul’s life, and the brothers helped him leave for Tarsus. However, Luke does not tell us that Paul was warned in a vision.  Galatians 1:18-21 mentions a trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. This is either the same trip as Acts 9:29-30 or another later trip. Acts 9 is not very clear in chronology, but three years may have passed before he finally went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles.

The Lord tells Paul that he has been sent to the Gentiles. While Paul objects to this commission based on his approval of Stephen’s execution, the Lord sends him “far away” to the Gentiles.

Hearing that Paul was sent to the Gentiles gets the Jews to demand that he be killed (22:22-29). Why?  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 Paul causes a riot in the Temple. The nationalistic fervor that fuels the rebellion is already at work in the Temple.

There are several differences between Luke’s narration of Saul’s encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 and Paul’s version in Acts 22. For example, he omits Paul’s bold preaching in Damascus and his flight from Damascus after preaching Jesus as the Messiah in the synagogues there. In Acts 22:17-21, Paul says he received his call to go to the Gentiles in a vision while worshiping in the Temple, something Luke did not mention previously in Acts. In fact, in Acts 9, God tells Ananias to inform Paul of his commission. Most of the differences can be explained as Paul’s accommodation to the zealous and hostile Jewish crowd he was addressing. Only a short time before this speech, the crowd was about to take Paul outside the city and execute him for profaning the Temple.

In Acts 22:12, Ananias is described as a devout Jew, someone who keeps the Law, and is respected by all the Jews living in Damascus. Devout (εὐλαβής) is the same word Luke used to describe Simeon in the Temple (Luke 2:25) as well as the devout men in the temple who were in the Temple at Pentecost (Acts 2:5) and the devout men who buried Stephen.

Ananias’s speech is slightly different in Acts 22 when compared to Acts 9. The way he describes God and Jesus is very Jewish. The “God of Our Fathers” and “Righteous One” are typical phrases used for the God of the Hebrew Bible. That Jesus is the Righteous One is found in Luke-Acts only in Jewish contexts (Luke 23:47, Acts 3:14, 7:32,13:23; Witherington, Acts, 672). So Ananias is a “devout man according to the Law” with a good reputation in the Jewish community in Damascus (22:12-15). Luke described the Jewish men at Pentecost as “devout men” (εὐλαβής), and devout men buried Stephen (8:2). In both cases, the word refers to diaspora Jews who are loyal to the Law.

Unlike Acts 9, Ananias does not tell Paul that God has called him to go to the Gentiles. Why? This is probably because Paul wants to emphasize his divine calling and waits to share this calling until the Lord calls him from the Temple. No details about his vision, conversation with the Lord (Acts 9:10-16).

Ananias tells Paul what “the God of our fathers” has appointed him to be. The phrase used for God appeals to a Jewish audience (3:13; 5:30; 7:32; 24:14). Paul’s calling is expressed in three clauses: To know his will (the purpose and plan of God), to see the Righteous One (God? Jesus?), and to hear a voice from his mouth. Ananias functions as Jesus’s prophet, delivering a message from God to Paul. Essentially, Paul will be a witness to all he has seen and heard (22:15).

Ananias then tells Paul to be baptized, to wash away his sins (22:16). Try not to read this like a modern American baptism. What would a Jewish person mean by saying “wash away your sins”?  This is an unusual way to express the command in Greek. Luke uses an aorist middle (quite distinct from the aorist passive). The nuance of meaning ought to be “go baptize yourself”). This may imply that Paul was to baptize himself in a mikveh, as we have observed several times in Acts.

Paul’s version of his encounter with Ananias in Acts 22:12-16 is different than Luke’s version in Acts 9:10-19, but this is because Paul is summarizing what happened and presenting it to a hostile Jewish crowd in a way that should make them more favorable to him. Would a well-trained Jewish man like Paul (who was accepted by a righteous Jewish man like Ananias) really profane the Temple?

At the end of chapter 21, the Roman soldiers rescue Paul from an angry mob in the temple courts. It was rumored that Paul brought a Gentile into the temple, an act so offensive that it was likely that Paul would be killed if the Roman commander had not stepped in and rescued Paul. This was no humanitarian act; the Romans suspected Paul was either a Sicarii or perhaps the Egyptian, a messianic pretender who had recently attempted to gather followers by claiming he would collapse the walls of Jerusalem. Remarkably, the Roman tribune allows Paul to make a defense before the hostile crowd.

Speaking to the Roman soldier, Paul proved that he was not an Egyptian, but an educated, Greek-speaking citizen of Tarsus and of Rome. As a result, he is allowed to speak to the crowd. Although he addressed them in Aramaic and described himself as a man zealous for the Law and one who has met God himself, he does not convince them, so the Roman commander arrests him.

Paul does not address the charges against him. He states he is a Jew, educated in Jerusalem, and called by God to a messianic role of Light to the Gentiles. Barrett suggests Paul’s conversion was not from Judaism (to Christianity), but within Judaism. “Luke wishes to make it necessary to show that the conversion was within and not from Judaism” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1031).

Paul addresses the crowd in Aramaic, demonstrating that he speaks the “local language.” The Jewish crowd was already hostile to him and thought he defiled the temple (and is therefore worthy of death). By speaking in Aramaic, he demonstrates that he is not a Hellenistic Jew unfamiliar with the language spoken in Jerusalem. Luke says he spoke in Hebrew (Ἑβραΐς). Most scholars think this refers to Aramaic, since Hebrew was used for the study of Torah rather than for conversation. When Paul speaks in Aramaic, the crowd becomes even quieter. Luke uses a noun (ἡσυχία), a respectful silence, indicating they are willing to hear what Paul has to say. He is at the top of the stairs, speaking loudly as an orator could, so the crowd can hear him.

Paul opens his speech by claiming to be a faithful Jew by sharing his personal credentials (22:3-5).  The whole speech is designed to impress a Jewish audience zealous for the Law” (Witherington, Acts, 668). He states that he is a Jew born in Tarsus but raised in Jerusalem (22:3). Unlike the Romans, who would be impressed by his Tarsus citizenship, the Jewish audience would be more impressed by Paul’s association with Jerusalem. “It is probable that Luke meant that Paul received not only his higher but also his elementary education not in Tarsus but in Jerusalem” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1035).

His education is impeccable: he was a student of Gamaliel (22:3). In Acts 5:34, Gamaliel defended the apostles before the Sanhedrin. He was the pupil of Hillel, one of the greatest of the Rabbis. His decisions and opinions are cited in the Mishnah. Paul does not claim to be a Pharisee in this speech, although he will in Acts 23:6. By claiming to be a student of Gamaliel, he is associating himself with one of the most respected teachers in Jerusalem.

At that time, Paul was as zealous for the Law as the crowd is now (22:3-5). This zeal took the form of violent action against those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul calls upon additional witnesses here since his authority to arrest followers of Jesus came from the High Priest and “council of elders.” They can attest to his zeal for the Law. Like Phineas or Judas Maccabees, Paul was willing to use force to compel fellow Jews to keep the Law completely if it was necessary.

Paul calls on the high priest and the Sanhedrin as witnesses. They authorized his mission to Damascus, and there would be some on the council who still remembered (perhaps bitterly) Paul’s betrayal (or conversion) to the Way.