acts dbc doc

8/3/2019 Acts DBC Doc

1/85

Paul's Apology

Acts 22

In our last study we saw Paul ending his third missionary journey by delivering a gift from the Macedonian churches

to the struggling Christian church in Jerusalem. When meeting with the Elders of the Jerusalem church, Paul was told

that it was being said that he taught Jews to forsake Moses. They asked him to prove his Jewishness by paying for

four Jewish mens vows.When Paul entered the temple to take part in a Jewish traditional practice, he was verbally attacked by a group of

Asian Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. Upon seeing the apostle in the temple, they cried out:

"Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our

people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and

has defiled this holy place." (Acts 21:28 NASB)

Their four-fold charge was entirely false, but it had the desired effect; the mob dragged Paul out of the temple and

began beating him.

The nearby Roman guard stepped in immediately and carried Paul away from the angry crowd as they were about to

beat him to death. As the Roman soldiers were carrying Paul in the fort, Paul asked to speak to the crowd. The Roman

commander gave him permission to do so.From chapter 21 on he becomes a prisoner; and from here on out until his death, he remains a prisoner. So we see Paul

from chapter 21 to the end of the book in chapter 28 as a prisoner. Now during the time of his being a prisoner, he

gives six different defenses of himself, of his actions, and of his attitudes. The first such defense is given here in

chapter 22.

The bloodied, bruised Paul, who would have to be in great pain:

...standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush,

he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying, (Acts 21:40 NASB)

"Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you." (Acts 22:1 NASB)

Paul's opening statement is strikingly similar to the words that He heard Stephen use many years before, Stephen said,"Hear me, brethren and fathers!"(Acts 7:2).

This man they had just tried to beat to death addresses this angry crowd in a very respectful manner. Remember, we

closed last week by saying that Paul loved the Jewish people. Paul is fleshing out here what he preached to others. He

had written to the Corinthians telling them the importance of love, and he described it this way:

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act

unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong

suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes

all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NASB)

The first thing Paul says about love is that it is patient. This is the Greek word makrothumeo, this word as it is used in

the NT is a word that almost on every occasion conveys the idea of having an infinite capacity to be injured without

paying back. It is used with regard to people, not circumstances. It's having a long fuse. The loving person is able to

be inconvenienced or taken advantage of by a person and yet not be upset or angry. How do you respond when

mistreated by others? Are you patient?

Paul says that Love is "not provoked"--the Greek word used here isparoxuno, it means to arouse to anger and is the

origin of the English wordparoxysm, a convulsion or sudden outburst of emotion or action.

Paul's final word in this section, love "endures all things" is from the Greekhupomeno, it is a military term that has

to do with being positioned in the middle of a violent battle; to stay under, remain, have fortitude, persevere. Love

stands against incredible opposition and still loves. Love never quits; it never gives up on anyone. It cares too much to

give up.


2/85

Paul wrote to the Corinthians the importance of love, and now he shows us a loving man in a very difficult situation.

How do you react to hostility? It your reaction Biblical?:

"Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you." (Acts 22:1 NASB)

Paul says, "Hear my defense"--the word defense is from the Greekapologia from which we get apologetics. It means:

"a speech in defense of." Paul is not apologizing as we may think of it, he is giving a defense.

So there he stands at the top of the stairs, with the crowd halfway up the stairs and filling the entire courtyard, jammedin there. He's got chains on his hands. He's surrounded by Roman soldiers. There's blood all over his clothes from the

beating, and his skin is all puffed and bruised, and the mob is now silent as he holds his hand up and he speaks his

defense, and it is a masterpiece. The basis of his defense is that all through his life to this point he had acted as a true

Jew in obedience to the God of the Jews:

And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more

quiet; and he said, (Acts 22:2 NASB)

When they realized that he was speaking in Hebrew, an even greater hush resulted.

Why did Paul speak to this crowd in the Hebrew language, when only a part of this crowd could understand this

language, and all others would have no idea what was said? In the first place, it was a mark of respect for Jewish

nationality, which they were not prepared to expect from Paul.

Speaking to this crowd in Hebrew excluded the Hellenistic Jews, the very ones who had taken the initiative in the

arrest and stoning of Stephen years before, and who had also taken the initiative in Paul's arrest now. The ability to

read and speak in Hebrew set the "native Hebrew" apart from the "Hellenistic Jew." If you asked a "native Hebrew"

about this, he would tell you this set him above the "Hellenistic Jew."

Why address only one part of this crowd, when speaking to them in Greek would have enabled virtually all present to

hear Paul's testimony? If Paul could convince these Jews, who were the dominant religious leaders in this city, the

opposition of the Hellenistic Jews would fad away. The Hellenistic Jews had called upon these men, these "men of

Israel," for their aid. Without their aid, Hellenistic opposition would not have enough strength to do away with Paul.

This also kept the Roman commander and his troops from knowing what Paul was saying. Here is Paul's apology:

"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel,

strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today. (Acts22:3 NASB)

He was born in Tarsus of Cilicia where there were large numbers of respected Jews, and his family was so "Jewish"

that they arranged for him to be educated in Jerusalem.

Hence he is not against the Jewish people. He was brought up in Jerusalem. One can hardly expect the son of

Diaspora Jews, returned to Jerusalem for his formative years, to be against the temple.

Educated under Gamaliel--Gamaliel was the leader of the school of Hillel, one of the two most influential parties of

the Pharisees. He had been a protg of Hillel, who was his grandfather. People called him Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban

(lit. "our teacher") was a title of higher honor than rabbi (lit. "my teacher"). Gamaliel was the most respected Pharisee

of his day. The Mishnah, a collection of commentaries on the oral laws of Israel published toward the end of the

second century A.D., contains the following statement about him: "Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, there has

been no more reverence for the law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time."

You couldn't have a better educational background than to be brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.

So here were these characters from Asia Minor saying that he is against the Law, and he says he was trained, "strictly

according to the law of our fathers." Now, listen to what he adds. "Being zealous for God just as you all are today."

Do you see what he is doing here? He justifies their motives for beating him. He says, You know, I know why you're

beating me up; because you think this is pleasing to God. I used to be zealous for God just like you. Then he proves it

by saying:

"I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, (Acts

22:4 NASB)


3/85

He tells them that he was not a person who was from the beginning in support of Christian doctrine--he tried to stomp

it out. Christianity became known as "The Way." It's easy to understand, isn't it? Jesus had said in the last night before

His death, "I am the Way."

He had hunted down Christians and had committed them to prison, even the women. For a Pharisee to bother about

women was zeal, indeed, for to a Pharisee women were of little account. And he had sought the death penalty on

many. Paul tells them that he used to do just what they were doing. He used to persecute Christians all over the place,

and all because of his zeal for God.

as also the high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify. From them I also received

letters to the brethren, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to

Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished. (Acts 22:5 NASB)

Paul here basically says: talk to the high priest and the Sanhedrin, they can tell you about my zeal for Judaism. They

gave me authority to hunt down and destroy Christians. So his credentials as a Jew, and as a zealous Jew, were

impeccable. None had been more zealous than he. And his only desire had been to serve God. This alone must prove

his genuineness. And then something had happened which had changed the whole course of his life, he met the risen

Christ.

"But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright

light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice

saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' (Acts 22:6-7 NASB)

Paul's account of his conversion here is unique in several ways. First, this is the first time in Acts that Paul has given

an account of his conversion. This account in chapter 22 is a "first person" ("I") account. Luke's account in chapter 9

was a "third person" ("he") account.

Blinding at noontime and being cast to the ground pictures the spiritual judgment under which the zealous Paul found

himself. The reference to noon might have been intended to remind the knowledgeable among his hearers of Moses'

words in Deuteronomy 28:

"The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart; and

you will grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your

ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you.

(Deuteronomy 28:28-29 NASB)

This blindness at noon meant that this zealous Jew was under the curse of God as a a covenant breaker. They should

have recognized that they too were under the curse of God even though they were zealous for God.

"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you

are persecuting.' (Acts 22:8 NASB)

Can you imagine all those Jews standing there listening to that? Jesus the Nazarene? They had condemned, killed and

buried Jesus the Nazarene. But then there were those stories of His resurrection. Whatever else this proved, it

demonstrated that Jesus was alive and in heaven and approved of by God, for here He spoke from God. It was

proclaiming the living, resurrected, and enthroned Lord, Jesus the Nazarene.

This was also a strong hint to the crowd. They too were persecuting Jesus when they persecuted Paul.

"And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the

One who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:9 NASB)

Now, he says: Look, if you don't believe that this happened, you find those guys who went with me to capture those

Christians, and they'll tell you that it happened.

"And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus,

and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' (Acts 22:10 NASB)

Notice that the things that Paul is going to do are things that are appointed for him. This is the same word that is used


4/85

in Acts chapter 13 in verse 48, where it is said that those whom God had appointed to eternal life believed.

Paul was not considering the claims of Christ as he marched toward Damascus that day. He had not been re-reading

his Bible in light of the life, death, and claimed resurrection of Jesus to see if the ancient prophecies pointed to Jesus

as Israel's Messiah. He was not unhappy with his life in Judaism, searching for another way. Rather, he was militantly

defending the Jewish faith, seeking to rid it of the blight of these heretics who claimed that Jesus was the Christ.

God didn't say: Oh Paul, I'd really like you to be My apostle, but I'm not going to force your will. You have to exercise

your free will to choose Me! There are many who say that the reason that God chose Paul, or that He chooses anyone,is that He foresees that the person will one day choose to follow Him. But to say this is to base God's sovereign

election on the fallen will of man, ignoring the plain Biblical truth that unless God firstdoes a work of grace in our

hearts, no one would ever choose Him. No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the

last day. (John 6:44 NASB)

Paul tells them that despite his hostility to Christianity, he was converted against his will. This is the testimony of a

hostile witness, which, in a court of law, carries greater weight than any other kind.

If you ever have any doubt about who initiates salvation, just remember the conversion of Paul. Here is a guy who is

going one way. God invades his life, and the guy hasn't even enacted his will, except to say, "Who are you, and what

do I do?" And God is already reversing his entire life. Salvation is an act of God.

"But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those

who were with me and came into Damascus. 12 "A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the

standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and

standing near said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very time I looked up at

him. (Acts 22:11-13 NASB)

Ananias was not a marginal Jew. He was a keeper of the Law of Moses and had a good reputation in the Jewish

community in Damascus. The key role Ananias played in Paul's conversion demonstrates to the audience that being a

pious Jew and being a Christian convert are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

"And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous

One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. (Acts 22:14 NASB)

Again, the term "appointed" suggests that God has had his hand on Paul for a long, long time. As he will say in the

Epistle to the Galatians, "From the time of his mother's womb." And, of course, as he says in other places, "From the

ages past."

Notice who appointed Paul: "The God of our fathers" Not a different God. You get the point? It's the God of Israel. It's

a devout Jew. It's a zealous Pharisee. See, this whole transformation is all involving features of Judaism. This title for

God is distinctly Jewish.

Ananias used the messianic title "The Righteous One" (Jer 23:5-6; 33:15; Zech 9:9; Acts 3:14; 7:52). This points to

the heart of the Gospel: the risen, exalted Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul sees, is the vindicated victim of an innocent

death.

'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. (Acts 22:15 NASB)

That is what he is doing right now--witnessing to what he had seen and heard. That is of the life, sacrificial death,

resurrection, and enthronement of Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah.

Now, when he says, "to all men," he obviously does not mean all men without exception, but as the context makes

very plain, all men without distinction. That is, both Jews and Gentiles. because he has been appointed apostle of the

Gentiles.

'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

(Acts 22:16 NASB)


5/85

It's not uncommon for people to suggest this text teaches that the way we get our sins washed away is by being

baptized in water. Now, if you read this passage in the original text, you will find that the word translated here

"calling" is participial in form. It's what is called an adverbial participle, or some grammarians call it a circumstantial

participle, and then, attached to it, the nuance that appears in the text.

Now remember, we don't have punctuation marks in the original text. Let's eliminate the comma after "wash away thy

sins." An editor added that, Luke didn't put it there. So let's read it this way, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be

baptized and wash away your sin by calling on His name." Now, in that case, we have the washing away of sins,

linked with calling on the Name of the Lord. That is a personal faith, calling on the Lord. That's the way that textshould be read. Baptism doesn't wash away sins, faith does.

The most unique part of Paul's account of his conversion is to be found in verses 17-21, which is found nowhere else

in the Scriptures:

"It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance,

(Acts 22:17 NASB)

Paul remained loyal to the temple, he is praying in the temple upon his return to Jerusalem. So Paul is clearly not anti-

temple.

So Paul had been fully dedicated to God from birth, he had been taught by the greatest teacher in the land, he had been

humbled by the glory of the Lord, he had heard the voice of the Lord, he had seen the resurrected Lord, he would

receive visions in a trance, his experience had been confirmed by a pious and revered Jew; what more evidence didthey need?

and I saw Him saying to me, 'Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not

accept your testimony about Me.' 19 "And I said, 'Lord, they themselves understand that in one

synagogue after another I used to imprison and beat those who believed in You. 20 And when the

blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I also was standing by approving, and watching out

for the coats of those who were slaying him.' 21 "And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far

away to the Gentiles.'" (Acts 22:18-21 NASB)

It took a vision from God to make Paul responsive to the appeal of his brethren to leave Jerusalem. He was convinced

that the people would listen to him, since he was "one of them" before, but the Lord told him this was not to be the

case. Thus, when divinely instructed of the futility of evangelizing his peers, Paul left Jerusalem, knowing that he was

being sent to the Gentiles.

In verses 18-21, Paul speaks of his vision as a dialogue, not a monologue. The first words are spoken by the Lord,

interrupted, as it were by a protest from Paul. Then, after Paul's interruption, the Lord speaks again. The command to

"go to the Gentiles" was linked with a parallel command to "get out of Jerusalem". Paul was telling his peers that the

time of their blessings was coming to an end, due to their unbelief, and that times of blessings were coming to the

Gentiles:

They listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with

such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!" (Acts 22:22 NASB)

What happened? That a heavenly vision in the temple would send Paul to the Gentiles was an unthinkable,

blasphemous notion. The crowd reacted to this "red flag" vocally, even turbulently. Raising their voices to drown Paul

out, they took up again their cry, "Away with him!"Of all the things that he could have said to that audience in the temple area, the thing that he said was probably the

worst thing, so far as his own safety was concerned. He didn't have to say that, you know. But he said it. He said it

because that was God's word to him. He knew what the reaction of the crowd would be, but he said it anyway.

There are things that we can avoid saying so as not to upset the people. We can avoid talking about the Sovereignty of

God or the first century Second Coming of Christ. We can avoid the things that disturb people, the controversial

subjects. But if we are faithful to the Word of God, and if we follow the example of Paul, we do not do that. We will

speak the truth of God no matter what the masses may think.

Why did they get so upset when Paul talked about taking the Gospel to the Gentiles? Jews had taken messages from


6/85

God to Gentiles many times in Israel's past (e.g., Jonah; the Pharisees, Matt. 23:15; et al.). That revelation could not

have been what infuriated Paul's audience. What upset them was that Paul was approaching Gentiles directly about the

Messiah without first introducing them to Judaism and its institutions. This was equivalent to placing Gentiles on the

same footing before God as Jews, and this was the height of apostasy to the traditional Jewish mind. The city that had

killed the prophets and crucified the Son of God had not changed.

And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air, (Acts 22:23

NASB)

All of a sudden this quiet crowd goes nuts. These poor Romans had not understood a word that Paul has said to these

people, because he has spoken in Aramaic. And when the place all of a sudden erupts, they do not know what to make

of it.

the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined

by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way.

(Acts 22:24 NASB)

Though Paul had been beaten five times by the Jews and felt the Roman lictors' rods three times, this scourging would

eclipse all these in its severity. In scourging, a whip of thongs studded with pieces of bone or metal, attached to a

wooden handle, was applied repeatedly to the back of a person positioned on the floor, at a pillar, or suspended from

the ceiling. It was very possible that a person should not survive scourging. And if he did survive, he might be maimed

for life:

But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is

it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?" 26 When the centurion

heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, "What are you about to do? For this

man is a Roman." (Acts 22:25-26 NASB)

Paul here uses his "get out of jail free card", his Roman citizenship:

The commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes." 28 The

commander answered, "I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money." And Paul said,

"But I was actually born a citizen." (Acts 22:27-28 NASB)

For someone to claim to be a Roman citizen when they were not was a capital crime and made them subject tosummary execution, and as his citizenship could be proved from citizenship records, it would be foolish for a non-

Roman citizen to make such a claim. Because most citizens did not travel far from their hometown, they did not

normally carry with them proof of citizenship. But a traveler such as Paul may have carried with him a copy of his

birth registration.

During the reign of Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) it was possible to obtain Roman citizenship for a high price. As

the son of a Roman citizen, Paul inherited this status. Born citizens enjoyed greater respect than Romans who had

bought their citizenship:

Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander

also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains.

(Acts 22:29 NASB)

Rome becomes the tool of God, not only to protect Paul and to promote the Gospel which he preached, but also to

chasten His disobedient people, Israel.

But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he released

him and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set

him before them. (Acts 22:30 NASB)

The commander released Paul from his chains, but kept him in custody. He decided the Sanhedrin could discover why

the Jews were accusing Paul, since he could not figure this out. In chapter 23 we see Paul's defense before the Jewish

Sanhedrin.


7/85

Having described hearing from Jesus the Nazarene from heaven, Paul will now continually proclaim the hope of the

resurrection. This proclamation is found in 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8. It will then be followed by a further description of the

risen Jesus to Paul (26:12-18). So from his arrest in Jerusalem to his commencement of his journey to Rome is one

long proclamation of the resurrection from the dead.

This message was preached by David B. Curtis on May 2, 2010. Media #504.

Paul Before the SanhedrinActs 23:1-11

We are studying a new section in the book of Acts; from the end of chapter 21 to the end of the book Paul is now a

prisoner and will remain a prisoner until his death. As we have seen, Paul was now in Jerusalem, he had gone to the

temple and was carrying out this vow with four other Jewish Christians. Near the end of his time of purification some

Jews from Asia Minor, who knew him only as a disturber of Judaism, and who hated him, started a riot, which was

designed to end in his being beaten to death. In the middle of the attempt to beat him to death, the Romans intervened,

saved his life, and started to take him into the Roman barracks. While on the steps ascending Fort Antonia, Paul asked

for, and was granted permission to, speak.

So Paul addressed his Jewish brothers in the Hebrew tongue. In Paul's apology he made three points; they were very

simple points. He basically starts out by saying: In blood, in training, and in zeal, I was what you are. Then he made

the second point: The Lord Jesus Christ intervened in my life as I was on my way to kill Christians. There is no other

satisfactory explanation for the change that has taken place in my life.

So the apostle asked them to consider his life before hand, then to consider the change that had taken place, from

Christian killer to defender of Christianity. This was truly divine intervention.

The third point that he made was: I was sent by God to the Gentiles. It was God speaking to me and as a result of that,

I have a ministry to them, which I would never have anticipated. Once Paul mentioned going to the Gentiles, the silent

crowd erupted, started throwing off their clothes and throwing dust into the air.

So the Romans again rescue him and take him into the fort to beat the truth out of him. Paul tells them he is a Roman

citizen and the Romans panic:

Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander

also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains.

But on the next day, wishing to know for certain why he had been accused by the Jews, he releasedhim and ordered the chief priests and all the Council to assemble, and brought Paul down and set

him before them. (Acts 22:29-30 NASB)

So Claudius Lysias, who is the commander of this particular garrison of soldiers at Jerusalem, faces a dilemma. To

preserve the life of this Roman citizen, he should probably keep him in custody. And in order to keep him in custody,

he should at least have charges. Yet. these he has not yet discovered. His desire is to find out exactly why Paul was

being accused by the Jews. He decides to assemble the Jewish Sanhedrin to examine Paul and determine what he was

being accused of.

The word "Council" here is the Greek wordsunedrion, which means: "to sit together." The Sanhedrin was made up of

high priests, which would be the acting high priest, the former high priest, and some special members of the family of

the high priest; and it was made up also of elders. Now, an elder was the head of a family or the head of a tribal

family. It also included scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. So you had high priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees,Sadducees; and the high priest was the moderator or the president.

The Sanhedrin met in the hall of hewn stone, which was the place set aside for them, it was an amphitheater, kind of

forum-type thing, where the 70 members of the Sanhedrin sat together in judgment. Two people would sit there as

secretaries taking down the count on the vote. The prisoner would stand in the middle.

During the past 25 or more years the Sanhedrin had been confronted by the Gospel at least five times. It deliberated

anxiously over the growing popularity of Jesus after the raising of Lazarus, and determined He must die (John 11:47-

53). In a hasty and illegal meeting, it determined that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and must die (Luke 22:66-71).

After the resurrection of our Lord, they arrested Peter and John and warned them not to preach in the name of Jesus


8/85

any longer (Acts 4:1-22). Shortly after that they arrested a larger group of the apostles, this time beating them to

underscore their threats and warnings if they preached in the name of Jesus any more (Acts 5:17-42). Under pressure

from the Hellenistic Jews, Stephen was tried on charges very similar to those made against Paul (Acts 6:8--7:60). The

Sanhedrin hardly seems to have reached a verdict when the mob dragged Stephen out and stoned him. Now, about 20

years later, Paul stands before the Sanhedrin. So this is the fifth time that the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council, the

brains, the wisdom of Israel, has been put in a position to have to evaluate the claims of Christ; they were really

responsible.

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly goodconscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NASB)

So the next morning they bring Paul before the Sanhedrin, the high court of Israel. They had already rejected and

condemned Christ, the apostles, and Stephen. One last chance will now come, and, in that sense, Israel's supreme hour

has been reached as Christ's chosen vessel, the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, is to stand before them.

"Looking intently"--are from the Greek word atenizo, which is a very strong word. It means: "stare at, to gaze at, to

fix your eyes on." Paul just stared at them, many of them were people he knew. Some of them were the students of

Gamaliel, who had studied with him when he was younger. Many of them were Pharisees, and the comradery of the

Pharisees was really amazing; they had been friends.

"Brethren"--this was not the proper way to address the Sanhedrin. The customary address to the Sanhedrin was a

standardized form which began, "Rulers of Israel, and elders of the people..." Notice how Peter addresses them:Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, (Acts 4:8

NASB)

Paul does not employ that, as he normally would, but instead puts himself right on a level with these rulers, no doubt

because he once was one of them, and he addresses them simply with the familiar term, "Brethren." That was

probably seen as an offense to these Jews.

"I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day"--how can Paul say this when in

his apology he said:

"I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons, (Acts

22:4 NASB)

How could his conscience be clear when he had done so much that was wrong? Remember "context is king." And in

this context Paul's clear conscience is in reference to how he had "lived his life." The Greek verb translated "lived my

life" ispoliteuomai, which means: "to conduct myself as a citizen." This expression is a rare one, used elsewhere only

by Paul in Philippians 1:27 (rendered "conduct yourselves" in the NASB). Its specific reference is to one's life as a

citizen. And so when Paul here claims to have lived with a clear conscience to this very day, he is specifically

referring to a clear conscience with regard to his civil conduct. He is denying the charge leveled against him of

bringing a Gentile into the exclusively Jewish section of the temple.

Let me say a word or two here about conscience. Conscience means co-knowledge, its that inner voice that tells us

how to behave based on what we have learned. The Webster dictionary says, "Conscience is the sense or

consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with

a feeling of obligation to do right or be good. A faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts."

But do you understand that conscience does not always tell you to do what is right? It tells you to do that which youhave been told is right. It tells us how to behave based on what we have learned. Your conscience may render you

guilty when you're really not. Or not render you guilty when you really are.

For a long time in Paul's life his conscience was fouled up, and his conscience was telling him what he was doing was

right--killing Christians; trying to stomp out Christianity. Our conscience must be informed by God's Word or it will

be a faulty guide. Paul was acting in good conscience when he persecuted the church, but he was terribly wrong,

because his conscience was informed more by his Jewish culture than by the Scriptures.

Today a Christian may feel guilty because they are not tithing. This is only because they have been taught that they

must tithe. But the New Testament nowhere commands the believer to tithe. Tithing is Jewish, not Christian. But if


9/85

you are taught wrong, you will feel guilty for doing things that are not wrong.

Many people do things that are wrong, but don't feel guilty because they have been taught they are right. The woman

in India who takes her baby and throws it to drown in the Ganges River thinks she is serving her God. She looks at

that god as some great fearful ogre who must be appeased.

If their charges were that Paul was conducting himself contrary to Jewish and Roman civil laws, Paul had no pangs of

conscience on such matters in the least. Paul implies that there is no possible ground of complaint against him. This

was certainly true. Yet, it seemed to imply that there was no reason for this meeting at all, that it was absurd,ridiculous, to have called this Council together.

The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. (Acts

23:2 NASB)

Ananias became high priest in A.D. 47. The Jewish high priesthood was a political appointment during Rome's

occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should

have gone to the ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor summoned him to Rome on

charges of being involved in a bloody battle between Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very

wealthy and resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very pro-Roman, and the

Jews finally assassinated him in their uprising against Rome in A.D. 66, nine years after Paul stood before him.

Exactly why he had Paul struck, we don't know. He was an egotistical, tyrannical ruler who pretty much did what he

wanted. Maybe it was because Paul didn't address the Council in the proper manner, or perhaps because he said he hada clear conscience; meaning the charges against him were false. For whatever reason, he had Paul hit.

The word "strike" here is from the Greek word tupto; a primary verb (in a strengthened form) to "thump," that is,

"cudgelorpummel(properly with a stick, but in any case by repeatedblows." This is with a fist, or one of the temple

police could have hit him with the clubs that they carried, right across the mouth.

Remember, Paul had just been badly beaten the day before by the angry mob. His face was probably sore and bruised.

The blow must have both shocked Paul and hurt terribly. Here again we see Paul following in the steps of Jesus:

When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, "Is that the way

You answer the high priest?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong;

but if rightly, why do you strike Me?" (John 18:22-23 NASB)

They were treating Paul just as they had treated His master.

Ananias was accusing Paul as a law-breaker, but he, the judge, just broke the law by ordering him struck. It was

specifically stated in passages like:

'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great,

but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15 NASB)

An individual who stood before a court of law was to be judged justly on the issues, and the high priest has violated

that. Jewish law said, "He who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God."

Now notice Paul's response:

Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me

according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" (Acts 23:3 NASB)

Paul here calls Ananias a stinking hypocrite. A "whitewashed wall" is one that has been painted to hide its

imperfections so that it can pretend to be what it is not. Paul may be drawing from Ezekiel 13:10-16.

This is certainly not the most tactful way for a prisoner to address a judge who holds the power of life and death.

Don't try this the next time you go to court. Let me ask you something: Is this a Biblical response? Is this what Jesus

would do? I'm not asking if you like Paul's response, but is it Biblical?:

"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the

other to him also. (Matthew 5:39 NASB)


10/85

Paul wasn't slapped, but the principle is the same. Paul didn't turn the other cheek:

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an

example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT

FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He

uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; (1 Peter 2:21-23

NASB)

Paul, is not acting very Christlike here. Jesus, when He was reviled, reviled not again. When He was threatened, Hethreatened not. So I guess it is possible for an apostle to lose his temper. And the fact that the Apostle Paul was a great

man is not affected by the fact that he lost his temper one time. So when we look at an incident like this, we should

avoid immediately saying, "No, it couldn't happen to an apostle." An apostle is simply a man, they were not sinless.

Peter is evidence of that.

Calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall," Paul was laying stress upon the hypocrisy that characterized this man.

Paul was saying, in effect, "I walk before the Law blamelessly, yet you, you religious hypocrite, hit me, breaking the

very Law you are required to uphold." "God is going to strike you"--God is going to punish you for sitting at the

seat of authority in the Law and violating the Law. That was prophetic. It wasn't long until that's exactly what

happened. God took his life, and he was murdered.

But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware,

brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF ARULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'" (Acts 23:4-5 NASB)

Paul blurts out in anger, someone questions his response, and Paul immediately admitted his fault. Paul is instantly

repentant, for he recognizes that he is in the wrong. He apologizes, then he quotes Scripture:

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. (Exodus 22:28 NASB)

Though the high priest had no regard for the Law, Paul did. He knew the words and the intent of Exodus 22:28, and he

cited them to those nearby. To revile God's representative was to be seen as reviling God. So Paul apologizes. Now,

that's Christlike! He informed them that he had not known that this man was the high priest, otherwise he would not

have done it.

Paul's prophetic curse, given in hasty anger, had violated a basic Biblical precept lived out by David in his dealings

with Saul. Though an officeholder dishonors the office through his conduct, one does not have liberty to dishonor him

(1 Sam 24:6; 26:9-11).

For all of Paul's freedom from the Law, Paul was still a man who endeavored to live in accordance with the precepts

and standards set by the Law, and thus he knew he was obliged to show respect to this man, Ananias; not for his

personal piety, but due to his position.

Paul had already written the Book of Romans; he wrote it from Corinth before he ever got to Jerusalem. And in the

Book of Romans, he said this to Christians who were living under Nero's rule:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except

from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has

opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon

themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have

no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister ofGod to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for

nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience'

sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to

this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom;

fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (Romans 13:1-7 NASB)

The Paul who taught the saints to live in submission to God-given authorities, even the wicked rulers, would do so

himself, even with regard to this evil and hypocritical high priest.


11/85

Paul acknowledged his sin in speaking thus, but he also claimed it was a sin of ignorance. He did not know this man

was the high priest. There are some who would doubt Paul's words. I have no doubt that Paul was both sincere and

honest in his claim of ignorance. I do not know why he did not know who the man was, but there are many possible

reasons. Many New Testament scholars feel that it was an ironical accusation of him; that he knew he was the high

priest, but he was so different from what a high priest should be in Israel, who should be a model of fairness and

equity. How could a person like this, so wicked, so notoriously evil. be a high priest in Israel? I guess that's possible.

Some other possibilities are:

Paul had not been in Jerusalem for a long time, nor had he been there long this time. Why would he know who wasthe high priest, or, better yet, why would he know what he looked like? This seems to have been a hastily called

meeting and may not have been nearly as orderly and formal. Was Ananias dressed casually or sitting in some seat

other than his normal place? Some think Paul had bad eyesight. Whatever the reason, Paul did not know who he was

speaking to and thus sinned in ignorance.

But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in

the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and

resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23:6 NASB)

I don't think we should assume that what is said in this verse happened immediately. There was probably a lengthy

discussion that took place, and Paul's understanding arose from things that were being said. Paul recognized there

were a number who would, in fact, agree with his main proposition, the resurrection from the dead.

The Sanhedrin was composed of priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and elders. For the most part, the priestly

families, the high priestly families were Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in the minutia of the oral Law. The

Sadducees accepted only the written Law. The Pharisees were Calvinists. They believed in absolute sovereignty. The

Sadducees were Armenians. They didn't know it yet, because those guys hadn't come along. But the Sadducees

believed in free will. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of predestination. So they used to always argue about

predestination and free will.

The Pharisees believed in angels, spirits, and the resurrection; the Sadducees did not. So here is the point that divides

these two, and it's the point at issue. Did the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Messiah of Israel, rise from the dead? The whole

issue, really, was the resurrection. Paul preached the resurrection. That's what people got upset about. He preached

that Jesus was alive, that Jesus had talked with him twice, and this is what infuriated everybody.

After Pentecost and the preaching of the apostles commenced, the Sadducees took the leading role in opposing the

apostles and Christianity. After all, the Gospel was based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. They couldnot allow such teaching to go unchallenged, especially when they were accused of instigating the death of Jesus. On

the other hand, the Pharisees seemed to gradually become less aggressive in their opposition to the apostles.

Paul, who saw these proceedings as having become weighed down by inessentials, was genuinely concerned to

establish the truth of the resurrection and of heavenly beings speaking to men and of his defense of them. That was,

after all, what his testimony had been all about. If he was to be condemned, let it be for something worth while,

something that will enable Claudias Lysias to recognize that what he is being charged with is simply a subject on

which the Jews themselves were in dispute. For the trial to become a dispute about Jewish teaching would strongly aid

his case.

So he points out that what he is really being condemned for is something that is dearly held by a number of them, the

hope of the resurrection. Every genuine Pharisee lived his life with only one final aim in view; that he might attain

eternal life and the resurrection from the dead.

We need to recognize what was central in Paul's thinking; the resurrection from the dead. Paul's confession focuses on

that aspect of the Gospel that will be central to his apologetic throughout his trial. It tells the truth about the ultimate

reason for his arrest by the Jews. For Paul and Luke, resurrection, especially the resurrection of Messiah Jesus, is the

key issue that determines the nature of the continuity and discontinuity between Jews and Christians as part of the true

people of God. Hope in the resurrection of the dead, literally,"Hope, even the resurrection of the dead."

Paul finds himself on trial because of the Messiah's resurrection and the new realities it introduced. For if Jesus had

not risen from the dead, he could not have appeared to Paul on the Damascus Road, or in the temple, and

commissioned him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 22:15, 21). Paul would then not have promulgated a

message or lived a lifestyle that his fellow Jews would have opposed.


12/85

As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the

assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a

spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Acts 23:7-8 NASB)

Suddenly the focus of the court shifted from Paul to the chief doctrinal differences that were being debated between

the two schools of belief:

And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and

began to argue heatedly, saying, "We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or anangel has spoken to him?" (Acts 23:9 NASB)

The Pharisees found themselves in a most interesting position; they found that they had more in common with Paul

than they did with the Sadducees. And so a number of the Pharisees had to acknowledge, at least in principle, that

what Paul claimed and taught was, by their own system of belief, believable.

The debate resulted in a partial verdict. Some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party said, "We find nothing wrong with

this man"

And as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces

by them and ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force, and bring him

into the barracks. (Acts 23:10 NASB)

Claudius, the Roman cohort, had another riot on his hands! He had failed in his quest to get to the bottom of the first

riot and discover why Paul had been accused. For the third time, he has to rescue Paul from the mob and once more

take him to the Roman barracks.

He must have been in some despair. Here he was stuck with this prisoner, who was a Roman citizen and therefore

difficult to deal with, and it was apparent that none of his opponents knew what to charge him with. He was having to

hold him without charge and risk any consequences.

But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, "Take courage; for as

you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts

23:11 NASB)

Things didn't seem to have gone too well, but One Person was satisfied with the way that things were going, and that

night the risen Lord stood by Paul, and encouraged him. The word "courage" here is the Greektharseo, which means:

"to havecourage, to be of good cheer or comfort." Can you imagine how comforting it would be for Jesus to show up

and say, "Be of good comfort, you have witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also."

Believer, do you understand that God is a God of comfort?:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all

comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in

any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Corinthians 1:3-

4 NASB)

Look at what Paul said to the Philippians:

Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in

everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds

in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:5-7 NASB)

Believer, the Lord Jesus Christ is here, He cares about you, and He is the God of all comfort.

The fact that Paul is now a poisoner may appear to us as a hindrance to the spread of the Good News. But remember,

God is in control. Paul was now such a marked man and so intensely hated by many Jews in many cities that wherever

he went his life was in danger; so much so that some followed him around with the aim of killing him. This being so,

his being directly under the protection of Roman soldiers with his companions able to visit him freely, is truly a


13/85

blessing of God. Remember what Paul wrote:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those

who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NASB)

We see this fleshed out in Paul's life, and you will see it in yours if you trust Him.


Providential Protection

Acts 23:12-35

Paul has finished his missionary journeys and is now in Jerusalem. Everything Paul has tried to do since he came to

Jerusalem has ended in a riot. He tried to pacify the Jewish Christians by purifying himself in the temple and paying

the expenses of four men who had taken a vow; that ended in a riot. He tried to give his testimony of what God had

done in his life to the Jewish crowd in the temple court, and that ended in a riot. He tried to give testimony before the

Jewish Council, the Sanhedrin, and that ended in a riot. Now he's a prisoner. A bunch of Jews put together a plot to

assassinate Paul, but God providentially protected him.

Let me just say that the term "providence" is not found in the Scripture, but the doctrine of providence is very

Scriptural. The theological term "providence" means nothing short of: "the universal sovereign rule of God."Providence is the preserving and governing of all his creatures and all their actions.

Charles Hodge said, "The external world, rational and irrational creatures, things great and small, ordinary and

extraordinary, are equally and always under the control of God."

The text we want to look at today is interesting in that it contains no exposition of Biblical doctrine, no exhortations,

and no commands. In fact nothing about the Lord is mentioned from verse 12 to the end of the chapter. The name of

God isn't mentioned, the name of Jesus isn't mentioned. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit, or salvation, or any

Biblical doctrine. So we are going to just skip this text and move on to chapter 24. Just kidding!

This text is like the book of Esther in which God is never mentioned, and yet His providential rule is seen at every

turn. In Esther we see the deliverance of Esther and Israel and Mordecai by the fact that King Ahasuerus one night

couldn't sleep. Because the king couldn't sleep, he called for the political records of the kingdom to be read to him. As

they were being read he found in there that Mordecai had done a very noble thing in the past. And he said, "What'sbeen done for Mordecai?" You know the story: Haman, a wicked man, who wanted to do away with Mordecai and all

of the Jews, had already made his plans. Haman had ordered gallows be constructed, upon which to put to death

Mordecai, and made arrangements for the extermination of the Jews. Well, because of the fact that Ahasuerus couldn't

sleep one night, just that incidental little thing, changed everything. The result was Mordecai was delivered and

honored, and Haman died on the gallows he had constructed for Mordecai.

Our text, like Esther, Illustrates for us the doctrine of God's providence. In our text Paul had a bad day, he had been

before the Sanhedrin, which ended in a riot, and now he is sitting in jail wondering what will happen next. Believers,

if we have a bad day, it is because the Lord ordained these circumstances for our benefit. Bad days don't just happen!

So Paul sits alone in the barracks, and the Lord Jesus comes to him in person in verse 11, and it says:


you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts23:11 NASB)

The risen Lord stood by Paul, presumably visually, and tells him to "Take courage." The word " courage" here is the

Greektharseo, which means: "to havecourage, to be of good cheer or comfort." If the Lord showed up to cheer up,

comfort, and encourage Paul, then Paul must have been somewhat discouraged. If you were Paul, and you had been

rejected by your own people, God's chosen people, the Jews; and you had risked your life to witness to them, only to

be beaten, and now imprisoned, there would be cause for despair. This was the fourth time in the book of Acts that the

Lord shows up for Paul during a time of hardship. Here the Lord tells Paul that he must witness for Him at Rome. It

took two years for this promise to be fulfilled.


14/85

Do you remember what happened when Paul was imprisoned in Philippi?:

and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were

shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened. (Acts

16:26 NASB)

They put Paul in jail, and the Lord had a very localized earthquake knock only the whole jail down--that's a miracle!

But there are no miracles in our text for today. In this text we see Paul's imprisonment as God's providential protection

of Paul. Paul was now such a marked man, and so intensely hated by many Jews in many cities, that wherever he wenthis life was in danger--so much so that some followed him around with the aim of killing him. If Paul, who was one of

God's choicest servants, went through such trials, then none of us are exempt, and the health/wealth teachers are

wacked.

When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that

they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. 13 There were more than forty who

formed this plot. (Acts 23:12-13 NASB)

"When it was day"--that's the morning after the night in which Jesus appeared to Paul and the very day after he had

given testimony to the Jewish Council. It says that the Jews bound themselves under an oath; the Greek is "they

anathematized themselves with an anathema." They devoted themselves to destruction. This was not an uncommon

thing. They placed themselves under a divine judgment, as it were, they invoked the vengeance of God. These men

clearly expected to achieve their aim quickly. Now you may be thinking, "Well I guess these men are dead now." Well,yes they are, but not because of this vow. Technically, they could have gotten out of the vow. The rabbis provided

absolution for those who just couldn't come through with their vow.

Why did they hate Paul? He'd never harmed them, stolen from them, or broken their laws. All he did was preach love

and salvation; announce that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, whom they had rejected, came alive from the dead. Paul told

them that even after they had rejected and crucified Jesus, He would grant them eternal life if they believed. They

hated Paul because he went around the Roman Empire preaching that

Gentiles could know God without becoming Jews. This message needed to be silenced.

They came to the chief priests and the elders and said, "We have bound ourselves under a solemn

oath to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. 15 "Now therefore, you and the Council notify the

commander to bring him down to you, as though you were going to determine his case by a more

thorough investigation; and we for our part are ready to slay him before he comes near the place."(Acts 23:14-15 NASB)

Now the chief priests of the Sanhedrin were the Sadducees. The Sadducees' party was the most antagonistic to Paul.

Do you remember for what reason? Because Paul taught the resurrection, and they were anti-resurrectionists. The high

priest probably never forgave him for publicly calling him a "white wall" and reminding him of the judgment he

faced.

Now obviously the conspirators knew that the leadership of Israel was so morally rotten that they were willing to

advertise a murder. These men were supposed to be the spiritual leaders, and they agreed to a murder plot, according

to verse 20. These assassins planned to kill him somewhere on the streets between the Fortress of Antonia and the Hall

of the Sanhedrin. These buildings were not far apart. They surely

realized that Paul's Roman guards might kill some of their number in the process. They hated Paul so much they werewilling to die in order to kill him.

On the surface, it would appear that Paul was really in danger now. Things seem to be going from bad to worse. But

this is only the appearance of things. In reality, this conspiracy is by God's providence; Paul's ticket for a safe

departure out of Jerusalem. It is also his next step toward Rome.

But the son of Paul's sister heard of their ambush, and he came and entered the barracks and told

Paul. (Acts 23:16 NASB)

It was no "coincidence" that Paul's nephew just "happened" to be there when these conspirators met, and to overhear


15/85

their plans. This is the only time the Bible says anything about Paul's family, other than Paul saying that his father was

a Pharisee. We don't know anything else. We do know that in Philippians 3:8, he said that because of his faith in

Christ, he had suffered, "The loss of all things." Most Bible teachers assume that "the loss of all things" included

being disinherited from his Jewish family, because from then on, you hear nothing at all about his family.

God providentially ensured that news of the plot reached the ears of Paul's nephew. And he came to the fortress and

informed Paul. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would have a certain freedom to enjoy visitors:

Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, "Lead this young man to the commander, for hehas something to report to him." (Acts 23:17 NASB)

As a Roman citizen his request would be received with respect. They would not want to offend him.

I have a question for you here: How do we reconcile this verse with verse 11?:


you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also." (Acts

23:11 NASB)

The "must" here is the Greek word "dei," which is a term often used by Luke to indicate divine necessity. Since God

had already told Paul that he was going to Rome, why did he even bother with these Jewish threats? Why didn't Paul

just laugh and say, I'm going to witness at Rome, try and stop me. Or, Thanks for telling me the news, but I'm trusting

the Lord--so you can go back home.

Sovereignty and Responsibility:

We know that God is sovereign over everything that happens. Nothing happens outside the sovereign will of God. He

controls plants, animals, men, weather, nations, and nature. God controls everything that happens. The Bible says that

God causes the rain and snow to fall on earth, along with the wind to blow and the lightning to flash (Job 37:6-13; Ps.

135:7). God also gives food to the wild animals and birds (Ps. 104:27-29; Matt. 6:26). God governs what we might

call random chance events, such as the casting of lots (Prov. 16:33). Also, God causes things to happen where His

creatures also play a role. For example, I may water and fertilize my grass or a farmer his crops, but God causes them

to grow.

God also governs human affairs. He determines the time, existence, and boundaries of the nations (Acts 17:26). He

sets up rulers and takes them down again (Dan. 4:34-35; Ps. 22:28). He governs every aspect of our lives (Jer. 10:23;

Prov. 16:9; 20:24), including the number of days that we will live (Ps. 139:16).

Because we are so prone to twist or misuse the truth we find in Scripture, it is the tendency of some individuals to see

the doctrine of sovereignty as fatalism. The fatalist would say, "God is going to do what He wants to do so I'm not

going to concern myself about it." If there was a storm coming, they would make no preparations; they wouldn't run to

the store or make sure they had batteries or water.

On the other hand, the person who rightly understands God's sovereignty would make all the preparations that wisdom

dictates, while the whole time trusting in God and praying for wisdom and protection.

God's sovereignty does not negate our responsibility to act wisely. Acting wisely, in this context, means that we use

all legitimate, Biblical means at our disposal to avoid harm to ourselves or others and to bring about what we believe

to be the right course of events.

David gives us a good illustration of acting wisely as he fled from Saul. Saul was determined to kill David. So David

did everything he could to avoid Saul. David acted wisely. David knew that he was to be king some day:

Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of

the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to

Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:13 NASB)

He had already been anointed to succeed Saul. And David knew that the Sovereign God would carry out His purpose:

I will cry to God Most High, To God who accomplishes all things for me. (Psalms 57:2 NASB)


16/85

David knew that God would fulfill His purpose for him. Yet David didn't just sit down and say, "Saul can't hurt me

because God had ordained that I be king, and I can't be king if I'm dead." David fled from Saul and took every

precaution so that Saul could not kill him. David didn't presume upon the sovereignty of God, but acted wisely in

dependance upon God to bless his efforts. He ran from Saul, and he prayed to God.

Jesus also gives us a good illustration of acting wisely. For most of His ministry, the Lord Jesus had been telling His

disciples not to disclose to the world that He is the Son of God. Even demons are silenced who cry out, "We know who

You are!"When a leper is healed, Jesus says, "See that you don't tell this to anyone"(Mk. 1:44). When a little girl is

raised from the dead, we are told, "He gave them strict orders not to let anyone know about this" (Mk. 5:43). WhenPeter, on behalf of the apostles, says, "You are the Christ,"we read that "Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about

him" (Mk. 8:30). The reasons for this were that there was considerable misunderstanding as to the nature of the

Messiah; the crowds thought of that figure as a political revolutionary.

If Rome suspected that He was a revolutionary who claimed to be the Messiah, they'd have taken and arrested Him. If

Jesus had immediately thrown down the gauntlet to the chief priests by teaching that He was the promised Messiah,

then He wouldn't have survived the two or three years of ministry He had to have.

I think Jesus' attitude of secrecy teaches us something about sovereignty and responsibility. Jesus knew He was going

to the cross; it was God's will, and it could not be stopped. And yet Jesus uses human means to keep His secret until

the proper time.

Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. (Ecclesiastes 10:18

NASB)

The house is not said to decay because of God's sovereign plan, but because of man's laziness. If a student fails an

exam because he did not study, he can't blame it on God's sovereign will, but on his own lack of diligence. God is

sovereign over every thing that happens in life, but we are still responsible. Don't ever use God's sovereignty as an

excuse for your failure to use wisdom.

Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, "Lead this young man to the commander, for he

has something to report to him." (Acts 23:17 NASB)

Take this boy to Claudius Lysias, your commander and chief.

So he took him and led him to the commander and said, "Paul the prisoner called me to him and

asked me to lead this young man to you since he has something to tell you." 19 The commandertook him by the hand and stepping aside, began to inquire of him privately, "What is it that you

have to report to me?" (Acts 23:18-19 NASB)

"Paul, the prisoner"--this is Paul from now on. Paul uses similar words 5 times in his letters (Ephesians 4:1;

Philippians 1:13; Philemon verses 1, 9). Who does Paul see himself as a prisoner of? Rome? No, the Lord Jesus

Christ:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- (Ephesians 3:1

NASB)

Evidently Paul's nephew was a young boy because Lysias took him by the hand and drew him aside to talk to him:

And he said, "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down tomorrow to the Council, as

though they were going to inquire somewhat more thoroughly about him. 21 "So do not listen to

them, for more than forty of them are lying in wait for him who have bound themselves under a

curse not to eat or drink until they slay him; and now they are ready and waiting for the promise

from you." (Acts 23:20-21 NASB)

No doubt the chief captain questioned the lad about the source of his information, and was satisfied. He would know

that the High Priest Ananias was quite likely to be involved in such a plot. It was typical of his methods.

So the commander let the young man go, instructing him, "Tell no one that you have notified me of

these things." 23 And he called to him two of the centurions and said, "Get two hundred soldiers


17/85

ready by the third hour of the night to proceed to Caesarea, with seventy horsemen and two

hundred spearmen." 24 They were also to provide mounts to put Paul on and bring him safely to

Felix the governor. (Acts 23:22-24 NASB)

Do you notice how Luke seems to contrast the kindness and lawful protection of the Roman commander with the

murderous conniving of these religious Jews? This is the heavily armed infantry, 470 soldiers armed to the gills to

escort one apostle out of town. This would deprive the fortress of a good proportion of its force for a short while, but

Claudius Lysias figured he needed a large force. He knew that the whole of the populous in the temple ground hadriled against Paul; he knew that this was a big issue, and he was afraid, so they left at 9:00 that night. He knew that

Paul would be safe in Caesarea if he could get him there. Caesarea was a Gentile-dominated town and a Gentile-

dominated territory. There was less likelihood of a real problem, or revolution, or assassination.

And he wrote a letter having this form: (Acts 23:25 NASB)

How did Luke know the wording of this letter? Luke never read it. This is a good illustration of divine inspiration. The

Spirit of God told Luke, by the miracle of revelation, the words of that letter, and he wrote them down with his own

hand.

Claudius summarizes the events that have brought him to this place of sending Paul:

"Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings. 27 "When this man was arrested

by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came up to them with the troops and rescuedhim, having learned that he was a Roman. 28 "And wanting to ascertain the charge for which they

were accusing him, I brought him down to their Council; 29 and I found him to be accused over

questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. 30 "When I

was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, also instructing

his accusers to bring charges against him before you." (Acts 23:30 NASB)

Notice the Lie in verse 27. He explains the circumstances of Paul's rescue, and suggests that he did it because he knew

that Paul was a Roman citizen. This was presumably in order to gain himself some credit. He didn't know he was a

Roman until he had already rescued him and strapped him on the frame to be scourged.

Notice that the commander indicated in very clear language, Paul's innocence:

... I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving

death or imprisonment. (Acts 23:29 NASB)

Why didn't the commander just release Paul if he knew he was virtually innocent? Because he knew that the Jews

would kill Paul, and that Paul's rights, as a Roman citizen, would thus be violated. He felt obligated to keep Paul alive.

Again this is the providence of God.

So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.

(Acts 23:31 NASB)

Antipatris is about 35 miles from Jerusalem. To crank those 35 miles out in that one night, they would have had to

push to their limits all through the night.

But the next day, leaving the horsemen to go on with him, they returned to the barracks. (Acts

23:32 NASB)

Once they got him to Antipatris, they were in Gentile territory pretty much. They felt that the 70 horsemen could

handle him, so the other 400 came back to Jerusalem.

When these had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented

Paul to him. 34 When he had read it, he asked from what province he was, and when he learned

that he was from Cilicia, (Acts 23:33-34 NASB)

Now, he had to determine where Paul was from, because he had to determine who had jurisdiction. There were two


18/85

kinds of provinces in the Roman Empire: There were those under the control of the Roman senate, and those which

reported to the emperor--the imperial provinces. He learns that Paul is from Cilicia, which, like Judea, is an imperial

province under the direct control of the emperor himself, responsible to him.

he said, "I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also," giving orders for him to be kept

in Herod's Praetorium. (Acts 23:35 NASB)

The word Praetorium is from the Greek "praitorion". It means: "the residence of the governor." Herod the Great had

built in Caesarea a very costly palace (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 15.331), which now served as the headquarters ofthe Roman procurator of Judea. So Felix said, "Keep him in my house." Paul was being given due respect as a Roman

citizen. Paul had been escorted by 470 soldiers, and now he was going to room in the palace. God is taking care of

him.

Let me point out several points from this text:

1) There is a very clear contrast in our text between the kindness and attention to the law of the Roman commander,

Claudius Lysias, and the cruel disregard for the law of the Jews, and especially of the Sanhedrin.

2) Paul's movement toward Rome is at the same time a final movement away from Jerusalem. Though he will

continue to witness "to the Jew first" (28:17-27), Jerusalem's refusal to receive the Gospel message (22:18, 22) and

constant intent to destroy its messengers (Lk 13:34; Acts 25:3) seals its judgment from God (Lk 13:35; 21:20, 24).

3) This chapter, like the rest of the Book of Acts, underscores the sovereign control of God over history. This has gotto be one of the greatest illustrations in the entire New Testament of the providence of God. God is at work in all that

happens, though we don't usually appreciate, or understand it. All too often we are just like Jacob. We see the

circumstance of life as against us instead of trusting in God who controls our circumstances. Look at what Jacob said

when he was really suffering:

Their father Jacob said to them, "You have bereaved me of my children: Joseph is no more, and

Simeon is no more, and you would take Benjamin; all these things are against me." (Genesis 42:36

NASB)

"All these things are against me"--he was dealing with some difficult circumstances, he had lost Joseph; he thought

Joseph was dead: Joseph, the son of Rachel, his beloved wife. There was a famine in the land. Simeon is now in Egypt

and the prime minister there is holding him, and the prime minister also now is insisting that Benjamin come. And so,

Benjamin, the young son of Rachel, now appears to be gone also. Joseph is dead. Simeon is gone, they can't get morefood unless Benjamin goes to Egypt. It's not so much one thing, it's when everything seems to come together and it's

all bad that we are often troubled. And Jacob responds, "All these things are against me."

At the very moment that Jacob uttered, "All these things are against me," actually, everything was working for him;

for Joseph, the son that he had thought dead, was not only alive, he was the prime minister of Egypt, the greatest

kingdom of the earth. Egypt was the place that had the grain that could solve their problems of food. In addition,

Joseph, the prime minister, was the beloved son of Rachel, and Joseph, the prime minister, was longing to be with his

family. The very time when Jacob says, "All these things are against me," is the very time when all these things were

working for his ultimate blessing and good.

You know, if we understand the providence of God, and understand how God controls the affairs of human lives, and

our lives, in particular, it's amazing, really, that we can be disturbed about things.

Calvin states in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 10: "Without Certainty

About God's Providence Life Would Be Unbearable.":

Here we are forcibly reminded of the inestimable felicity of a pious mind. Innumerable are the ills which

beset human life, and present death in as many different forms. Not to go beyond ourselves, since the

body is a receptacle, nay the nurse, of a thousand diseases, a man cannot move without carrying along

with him many forms of destruction. His life is in a manner interwoven with death. For what else can be

said where heat and cold bring equal danger? Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding

objects not only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to present immediate death. Go on

board a ship, you are but a plank's breadth from death. Mount a horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers

your life. Walk along the streets, every tile upon the roofs is a source of danger. If a sharp instrument is


19/85

in your own hand, or that of a friend, the possible harm is manifest. All the savage beasts you see are so

many beings armed for your destruction. Even within a high walled garden, where everything ministers

to delight, a serpent will sometimes lurk. Your house, constantly exposed to fire, threatens you with

poverty by day, with destruction by night. Your fields, subject to hail, mildew, drought, and other

injuries, denounce barrenness, and thereby famine. I say nothing of poison, treachery, robbery, some of

which beset us at home, others follow us abroad. Amid these perils, must not man be very miserable, as

one who, more dead than alive, with difficulty draws an anxious and feeble breath, just as if a drawn

sword were constantly suspended over his neck?

Calvin, also writes, "Ignorance of providence is the ultimate of all miseries. The highest blessedness lies in the

knowledge of it." I couldn't agree more.


Paul's Defense Before Felix

Acts 24:1-21

In our previous studies we have seen that Paul had been arrested in Jerusalem as a riot was about to break out in the

temple courts. He had made two unsuccessful attempts to placate the Jews and to testify to them of Jesus Christ. They

refused to listen; and now, after a plot against his life, he has been brought down to the province capital, Caesarea, on

the coast. There he will face the governor:

When these had come to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented

Paul to him. (Acts 23:33 NASB)

The delivery of Paul to Caesarea marked the beginning of a two-year imprisonment in that city. During this period he

stated his case and also the case for the Christian Gospel to two provincial governors and a king, fulfilling one aspect

of the Lord's prediction about his ministry:

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the

Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; (Acts 9:15 NASB)

The governor referred to in Acts 23:33 is Felix. His full name was Marcus Antonius Felix. He was Roman governor of

Judaea (52-58). He is also known as Claudius Felix. He began his life as a slave, but due to the fact that his brotherPallas gained a great deal of favor with Antonia, who was the mother of Claudius, the Roman Emperor, he, also,

gained his freedom as well. He was the first slave in history to become a governor of a Roman province.

His behavior in Palestine increased the hatred of Rome. Tacitus says of him that "Practicing every kind of cruelty and

lust he wielded royal power with the instinct of a slave" (which of course he had been). His method of exacting his

will was by violence and crucifixions. He married three times, and each time into royalty. His first wife was the

granddaughter of Anthony and Cleopatra; his present and third wife was Drusilla, a very beautiful Jewess and

daughter of Agrippa I. She had been married when young to Azizus, king of Emesa, a petty Syrian king, but Felix saw

her shortly after her wedding, desired her, and through the services of a magician from Cyprus prevailed on her to

desert her husband and marry him in defiance of the Law. This was typical of the man. Tacitus says, "He believed that

he could commit all kinds of enormities with impunity." Tacitus also said that he indulged in every kind of barbarity

and lust (Histories 5:9). Sounds like our politicians.

Under his procuratorship hostility against Rome increased enormously, resulting in the expansion of the influence ofthe zealots, and he then reacted viciously against them by hunting them down ruthlessly and dealing with them with

extreme cruelty. This simply produced a further reaction which resulted in general hatred and contempt and a huge

increase in the number of "assassins" (men who mingled in crowds with hidden daggers and secretly murdered

collaborators) until no one in Jerusalem with political connections could feel safe.

Once Paul arrives in Caesarea, Felix says, "I will give you a hearing after your accusers arrive also."This is where

we left off last week.

The first nine verses of chapter 24 are Luke's account of the accusations made against Paul by the Jews, as represented

by Tertullus, the lawyer. Verses 10-21 are Luke's account of Paul's defense.


20/85

After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named

Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. (Acts 24:1 NASB)

The importance attached to Paul is seen in that the high priest came in person together with some leading elders and

with a trained advocate in order to charge Paul. Ananias was a corrupt high priest. He saw Paul as a threat, so he had

traveled over sixty miles to present his charges before a Roman governor, in hopes of having Paul put to death. This

whole thing must have been quite an awkward situation for Ananias, because he had to deal with a man who just a few

years earlier had been a mere slave.Tertullus was probably a Hellenistic Jew in view of his Roman name, though he could have been a Roman Gentile.

"Attorney" is from the Greek word rhetoros, which means: "a lawyer who was specially skillful in oratory." This is its

only time it appears in the New Testament.

"After five days"--this will be calculated from when the trouble first began (see verse 11). After arriving in

Jerusalem, Paul had met with the church, immediately spent a few days of purifying, and had five days earlier been

initially arrested by the Romans, making "twelve days" in all.

After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, "Since we

have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried

out for this nation, 3 we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with

all thankfulness. 4 "But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your

kindness, a brief hearing. (Acts 24:2-4 NASB)

Tertullus begins by engaging in a bit of nauseating flattery. He spoke of Felix as a very wise and benevolent leader,

who skillfully had brought peace and progress to the Jewish nation. "We have through you attained much peace"--

with a knowledge of secular history, we know that these statements were hypocritical and dishonest. Felix was no man

of peace, and the Jews did not have a high regard for him. He assassinated Jonathan, the high priest, because he didn't

like him (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.8.5). I think that Tertullus praised Felix for being a peacemaker in preparation for

his charge that Paul was a disturber of the peace (vv. 5-6).

After the flattery he brings the charges against Paul:

"For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews

throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 "And he even tried to

desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [We wanted to judge him according to our own

Law. (Acts 24:5-6 NASB)

The first charge was that Paul was a "real pest." The Greek here is loimos, which means: "a plague (literally the

disease) or pestilence." The idea is that he is a revolutionary pest, a troublemaker, stirring up difficulties and riots all

through the empire. This lawyer knew that would have an effect upon this Roman judge, because the Romans had a

far-flung empire to administer, and the one thing they dared not tolerate was civil disorder. Any uprising could be a

spark that would light a fire which would be very difficult to put out, and they knew it. The Romans dealt with a

heavy hand with any troublemaker.

Second, Paul was labeled a re

acts dbc doc

Documents