The Flesh Accomplishes Little

Acts 22:30-23:10

Since he dared not use torture to interrogate Paul, the chief captain ordered the Jewish leadership to appear for a hearing to determine what the charges were and whether there was sufficient evidence to hold him.

“On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.” (Acts 22:30)

Under Roman law, the accused usually defended himself. The law allowed him considerable freedom to show his innocence. Jewish law made a similar concession, requiring that the claims be verified before punishment was administered. Paul started his opening statement.

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” (Acts 23:1)

All his life Paul had had the intention of doing what was right, even though he had been wrong, as he learned on the road to Damascus.

“And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.” (Acts 23:2)

Under both Roman and Jewish law, the accused was permitted to speak freely in his own defense. Ananias was abusing his position in ordering Paul to be smitten, and perverting judgment by limiting what evidence could be presented. It is a problem in our modern courts as well. Paul was angry at the blatant disregard for the law they were to uphold.

“Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3)

The high priest’s authority came from God, and Paul warned him that he would be held accountable by God for ignoring God’s law. In his anger, he accused the high priest of hypocrisy, of painting the wall to hide it’s defects.

“And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” (Acts 23:4-5)

Although Paul had originally been a Jewish leader himself, he had been separated from that life for more than twenty years, and he was not familiar with the current political and religious leaders and had not recognized the chief priest. He referred to Exodus 22:28 in his apology for his comment. “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” Even when they are wrong, we are not to be disrespectful to the authorities.

“But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6)

Paul had been present at Stephen’s martyrdom, and knew that they intended to kill him. Ananias was trying to shut him up even before he had the opportunity to share the gospel. Paul was willing to die, but he did not want to die without sharing his message. In an attempt to get a valid hearing, Paul appealed to the Pharisees conflict with the Sadducees over the after life.

“And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (Acts 23:7-9)

Like the humanists and rationalists of today, the Sadducees did not believe in a real spiritual world, practicing the Jewish religion merely as a good moral standard and for a cultural identity. They became quite upset at the idea that God or his demands were real, however. The Pharisees, on the other hand were genuine believers, convinced that God was real and their beliefs were valid. Though they thought he was wrong, the Pharisees would give Paul the benefit of the doubt.

“And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.” (Acts 23:10)

The unresolved conflict erupted over Paul’s statement that the trial was over whether the resurrection was true or not, and became so out of hand, the chief captain was fearful they would kill his prisoner, and he would be held accountable. He ordered the forcible removal of Paul to the castle.